ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Food Aid

Alex Cunningham: What recent assessment he has made of the provision of food aid in the UK.

Luciana Berger: What recent assessment he has made of the provision of food aid in the UK.

George Eustice: The provision of food aid ranges from small, local provision to regional and national schemes. There are no official figures for the number of food aid organisations or the number of people using them in the UK. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has commissioned research to assess publicly available evidence on food aid provision in the UK, and that work will be made available in due course.

Alex Cunningham: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. In the past year, several new food banks have been opened in my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of Stockton South by excellent organisations like A Way Out and the New Life church. Some are supported directly by the Trussell Trust, which states that the number of people relying on food banks has gone up from 41,000 to 350,000 since this Government came to power. What does the Minister think has caused that explosion in demand?

George Eustice: There are a number of complicated reasons for those changes and nobody is quite sure. That is one of the reasons we commissioned this report. The use of food banks has been going up for some time, and it also increased dramatically under the previous Government. This is a good example of the big society in action, and we are seeing some good organisations stepping up to help people.

Luciana Berger: I welcome the Minister to his new post, but I hope he will have time to refer to the facts and figures of the matter. Under this Government, the use of food banks has rocketed, and I hope he will read carefully the report from Oxfam and Church Action on Poverty that came out in May and shows that, this year alone, half a million people will access emergency food aid. I think that is a national disgrace. Does the Minister agree?

George Eustice: As I said, the reasons for the increase are complicated. The hon. Lady asks about the facts and figures, so let us look at them. The accepted way to measure household expenditure on food is by looking at the bottom 20%. We know that in 2008, when the previous Government were in power, the lowest 20%—the most disadvantaged households—spent 16.8% of their income on food. That figure is now 16.6%. If we look at the facts, spending on food as a percentage of household income for the most disadvantaged is no more than it was in 2007.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the provision of food banks in this country should be seen in the light of the tenfold increase in food banks under the previous Government, and will he commend the work of the Coalville food bank in my constituency?

George Eustice: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and we must recognise that if we want to tackle poverty we must help people get back into work and off benefits. That is one reason why the Government’s welfare reforms are so important.

Gary Streeter: I welcome two west country colleagues to the Front Bench and wish them every success. Does my hon. Friend recognise that food banks have careful rules about how much food they give to people and how often they give it, to ensure that people do not become dependent on food parcels? Surely giving a helping hand in times of need is a very good thing indeed.

George Eustice: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Two food banks in my constituency do very good work, and, as I said earlier, that is an example of the big society in action. We should support that and welcome it.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Barry Sheerman: When he expects bovine tuberculosis in England to have been eradicated.

Owen Paterson: I welcome the Opposition Front Benchers to their new positions—the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who is the new shadow Secretary of State, and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Richard Benyon) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), who have stood down from the Government Front Bench, for their sterling work, for the absolute support I received, and for the sensible advice and experience they brought to their posts. I also welcome two new Under-Secretaries of State, my hon. Friends the Members for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) and for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson). They come from a rural background and will embellish the Department.
	The answer to the question from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is that the Government have recently completed their consultation on a draft strategy for achieving officially bovine TB-free status for the whole of England in 25 years.

Barry Sheerman: The truth is that the cull is incompetent—it has been described as such by the lord mayor of Oxford, and the whole May family, including Brian May, say that it is a disaster—but we should not ignore the fact that what is being done to badgers in the west country is morally reprehensible. It is ineffective and inefficient, and ignores scientific opinion. Why does the Secretary of State not resign?

Owen Paterson: The hon. Gentleman supported a Government who did nothing about the disease. Thanks to the policies of the Government he supported, 305,000 otherwise healthy cattle were hauled off to slaughter at a cost to the British taxpayer of £500 million. If we go on as he left it, the disease would double over nine years, we would be looking at a bill of £1 billion and we would not have a cattle industry. The pilots were set up to establish the safety, the humaneness and the efficiency of a controlled shooting by skilled marksmen. It is quite clear that, after the first six weeks, we have succeeded on all three criteria.

George Freeman: Schools across Britain recently celebrated world milk day—milk is produced by cattle, Mr Speaker—something I saw for myself when I visited Pavilion nursery school in Attleborough, Mid Norfolk. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House applaud that initiative as a key opportunity to highlight the benefits of milk as the health drink, and the enormous pressures facing the UK dairy sector, not least the threat of TB in cattle. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that the dairy market is working properly for consumers, processers and farmers?

Mr Speaker: Order. That was an extraordinarily strained attempt on the part of the hon. Gentleman to shoehorn his personal pre-occupations into Question 2, but the Secretary of State is a dextrous fellow, and I dare say he can respond pithily.

Owen Paterson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My hon. Friend raises a vital point—we need a dynamic, productive and successful dairy industry. We will not have a dairy industry if we do not tackle that bacterium, and if we do not do what every other sensible country has done when there is a reservoir of disease in cattle and a reservoir of disease in wildlife.

Angela Smith: The estimate last October was that there were 4,300 badgers in Somerset. The estimate this week is 1,450. Is it the Secretary of State who has moved the goalposts, and not the badgers? Has he not scored a massive own goal in pursuing this misguided cull?

Owen Paterson: I do not know whether the hon. Lady saw my comments. I stated something that was screamingly obvious: badgers are wild animals that live in an environment in which their numbers are impacted by weather and disease. She should reflect on this. I can report to the House that some of the animals we have shot have been desperately sick—in the final stages of disease—which is why we are completely determined to see the pilot culls through, and why we will pursue measures that the previous Government ducked. We are dealing with a bacterium that affects cattle and wildlife, and ultimately human beings. We will address that bacterium in a rigorous and logical manner.

Andrew George: Further to that point, given that the policy must be based on sound science and evidence, can my right hon. Friend say whether there have been similar dramatic drops in badger numbers in the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency site at Woodchester park and sites such as Wytham in Oxfordshire, where they are monitored closely?

Owen Paterson: I cannot give my hon. Friend the exact numbers at Woodchester park, but in other areas there has been a significant reduction in badger numbers compared with this time last year.

Maria Eagle: Last year, the Secretary of State cancelled the cull because there were too many badgers. Yesterday, he admitted that the cull in Somerset would be extended because he could not find enough of them. Can he explain why Gloucestershire has also applied for an extension, even though the six-week trial there has not finished? Is it because the badgers have moved the goalposts there as well?

Owen Paterson: I welcome the hon. Lady to her post. I should like her to reflect that, back in 1972, we had the disease beaten—it was down to 0.01%—when we had a bipartisan approach. In every other country where there is a serious problem in cattle and a serious problem in wildlife, both pools are addressed. Her Government tried to sort the problem out by addressing the disease only in cattle. That was a terrible mistake.
	On the numbers, as I have just told the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), these animals are wild. There have been similar reductions in Gloucestershire. We are satisfied that, if the local farmers company wants to go on and to apply for an extension, we will be broadly supportive.

Maria Eagle: I am afraid that this policy is an absolute shambles. The Secretary of State has failed to meet his own target of eradicating 70% of the local badger population in Somerset, and it is clear that he expects to fail in Gloucestershire too. He must know that extending these trials risks spreading TB over a wider area. Rather than the ever-rising cost of policing his failed approach, we need a coherent plan to eradicate TB through the vaccination of badgers and cattle, and tougher rules on the movement of livestock. Instead of blaming the badgers, when will he stop being stubborn, admit he was wrong and abandon this misguided, unscientific and reckless killing of badgers?

Owen Paterson: I am disappointed by that question. We are clear—and we have had advice from the chief veterinary officer—that the number that was achieved in Somerset will lead to a reduction in disease. The hon. Lady should look at what Australia did with its buffalo pool, what New Zealand did with the brushtail possum and—importantly—what the Republic of Ireland did when it had a steadily rising crest of disease in cattle. As soon as the Irish started to remove diseased badgers, they saw a dramatic reduction in affected cattle and, happily, the average Irish badger is now 1kg heavier than before the cull. The Irish are arriving at a position that we want to reach— healthy cattle living alongside healthy badgers.

Mr Speaker: We need to speed up. Succinctness can be exemplified by Mr Laurence Robertson.

Laurence Robertson: As part of the cull is taking place in my constituency, I thank the Secretary of State for being the first in over a generation to tackle this issue. Does he share my concern at the statement made by the police and crime commissioner for Gloucestershire yesterday opposing the extension of the trial? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is for the Government and Parliament to decide what should happen, not a publicity-seeking PCC?

Owen Paterson: Policing issues are not for me. There will be legitimate protests because we live in a democracy and we respect that, but there is a grey line and we do not support obstruction of a policy that was endorsed by both parties in opposition and in government and has been endorsed by this House.

England Coastal Path

Emma Lewell-Buck: What timetable he has set for the completion of the England coastal path.

Dan Rogerson: We have not set a timetable for completion of the English coastal path. We will be implementing coastal access step by step by tailoring the amount of activity to the resources available. Natural England is currently working on a programme to deliver coastal access on a number of stretches of the English coast.

Emma Lewell-Buck: At a cost of £1 per metre, the coastal path represents excellent value for money. However, the Minister’s predecessor showed little enthusiasm for the project, leading to fears that it would be shelved. Will the Minister confirm that the coastal path budget will be protected during deliberations on the Department’s future spending, and give a date for final completion?

Dan Rogerson: I thank the hon. Lady for her question: it was a pleasure to serve alongside her briefly on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee following her election. The key issue for us is pushing forward this project, but we have to be honest about the fact that we are in a time of restricted resources. We must therefore be efficient in working with landowners and others to streamline the process and to deliver the coastal access that everyone in the House would like to see.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Tony Baldry: How many cattle were slaughtered in Britain as a result of bovine tuberculosis in the last 10 years; and at what cost.

Owen Paterson: Between 2003 and 2012, a total of 305,270 otherwise healthy cattle were compulsory slaughtered in Great Britain as a result of bovine TB. In England alone, the disease has cost the taxpayer £500 million in the past decade.

Tony Baldry: Cattle may not have the same anthropomorphic advocates as some other animals, but they are equally part of God’s creation. Is it not a tragedy that more than 300,000 healthy cattle have had to be slaughtered? Is it not right that unless, collectively,
	we manage to sort out bovine TB, huge numbers of other healthy cattle will be slaughtered? There has to be some concern for cattle in all of this.

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this matter. In his county, 234 otherwise healthy cattle were slaughtered in 2012. Shockingly, in the first six months of this year the number of healthy cattle slaughtered reached 307. I again appeal to those on the Opposition Front Bench to look at the policies pursued in America, Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland and even by their socialist friends in France, where there are regular culls of diseased animals. We do not have a valid cattle vaccine. We are working closely with the European Commission, but we are at least 10 years away from that, so the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) cannot hide behind dreams ahead. We have to address the disease now with the tools we have at the moment, as every other sensible country does.

Caroline Lucas: It is indeed a tragedy that so many cattle have been slaughtered, but that does not make a badger cull right or effective. The Department is reported to be undertaking new research into the possible gassing of badgers. Will he confirm that that is the case? If so, what is the scope of the research, and why does he have cause to think that the 2005 DEFRA review, which found that gassing badgers could not be done humanely, is no longer valid?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. As I have just said, until we can establish vaccines we have to use the tools employed by other sensible countries to remove wildlife. Our TB strategy is clear about looking at other methods of removing wildlife. Yes, gassing is under consideration, but we will not use it unless it is proven to be safe, humane and effective.

Nadhim Zahawi: Farmers in Stratford-on-Avon welcome the Government’s commitment to the control of bovine TB through the culling of badgers. There is, however, significant concern about the reservoir of TB in camelids and the lack of a testing or control regime for these animals. What do the Government intend to do on this matter?

Owen Paterson: I am acutely aware of the concerns of livestock farmers about the risk to cattle posed by camelids. However, evidence suggests that camelids pose a very small risk of spreading the disease to cattle and badgers. In fact, there are no known cases where a cattle breakdown has been caused directly by transmission from camelids. Nevertheless, I have asked the Animal Health and Welfare Board for England for advice on a proportionate disease control regime for the camelid sector, including how surveillance, breakdown and pre-movement testing can be more effectively carried out.

Bill Esterson: Media reports suggest that some gassing of badgers is taking place. Will the Secretary of State confirm that if his officials come across any evidence of the gassing of badgers, they pass it on to the police?

Owen Paterson: Emphatically yes, because any random cull would worsen the disease. If the hon. Member has such evidence, he should take it to the police.

Roger Williams: I congratulate my hon. Friends on their new positions and I look forward to working with them. Sadly, bovine TB is well established and endemic in various parts of England, but other parts are free of the disease. What action is the Department taking to ensure that the disease does not spread from the highly infected areas to the less infected areas?

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. The danger is that unless we get a grip on the disease in high risk areas it will work its way across to other areas—I cited the figures for Oxfordshire in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). Our TB strategy is clear about containing the disease in high-risk areas and not letting it spread. We must be emphatic about that.

Kerry McCarthy: Given that it has so far cost the taxpayers of Somerset and Gloucestershire £4 million, I was rather concerned that the Secretary of State implied that he did not think that policing was of any concern to him. Does he not think that that money would be better spent on a comprehensive badger vaccination programme?

Owen Paterson: I think the hon. Lady may have misinterpreted my comments. I do not handle policing; I handle disease in animals. This is a zoonosis, which has to be brought under control. It will take 10 years for a programme agreed with the European Commission to develop a cattle vaccine. Labour Members need to recognise that we cannot sit around as they did, waiting for a new tool to arrive. We have to use the existing tools, which have effectively reduced the disease in other more sensibly run countries.

Dog Ownership

David Amess: What steps he is taking to encourage responsible dog ownership.

Andrew Stephenson: What steps he is taking to encourage responsible dog ownership.

Simon Wright: What steps he is taking to encourage responsible dog ownership.

George Eustice: We have a robust package of measures to tackle irresponsible dog ownership and improve public safety. New powers will allow local authorities and the police to deal flexibly with local dog issues. There will be new legal protection against dog attacks on private property and stiffer penalties for those who let their dogs kill or injure someone.

David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. With my rescue pugs, Bo and Lily, about to take part in the Westminster dog of the year show,
	does my hon. Friend agree that I will be responsible for their behaviour—may God help me—just as all dog owners are responsible for the behaviour of their own dogs?

George Eustice: May I wish Bo and Lily the very best of luck in the Westminster dog of the year competition? I was told by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) earlier that his own dog, Cholmeley, will be there offering competition.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) makes a very good point. I had a rescue dog—a border collie called Mono, and these dogs make for loving and dedicated companions. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that getting responsible dog owners is the way to get good dog behaviour.

Mr Speaker: No doubt we will hear about the dog enthusiasms of Mr Andrew Stephenson.

Andrew Stephenson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate the Minister on his new position. Unfortunately, I do not have a dog, so I cannot enter one into the competition.
	As for dog attacks, my own mother was attacked in the run-up to local elections by a dog on private property. As the Minister will be aware, around 70% of dog attacks on postal workers occur on private property. What effect does the Minister think the extension of the criminal offence of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control on private property will have on all those whose jobs depend on visiting people’s homes?

George Eustice: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Volunteers in my own constituency, too, have experienced dog attacks. For the first time, this measure will give hard-working people such as postal workers and others who visit homes as part of their job the full protection of the law when they are confronted by an out-of-control dog. This Government support hard-working people—not just in words, but in deed.

Simon Wright: The ease with which puppies can be traded on the internet is bringing more and more poorly looked after and sometimes dangerous dogs into the community. Will the Minister update us on what progress has been made to ensure that animal welfare and responsible ownership are promoted when puppies are made available for sale online?

George Eustice: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. My noble Friend Lord de Mauley recently met members of the Pet Advertising Advisory Group and they discussed a voluntary code to improve standards of internet advertising. Officials have looked at the problem of illegal puppies being imported through our ports—an area in respect of which I intend to have further meetings in the weeks ahead.

Robert Flello: The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) will be pleased to know that my rescue German shepherd dog, Diesel, is not taking part in the competition this year. However, on a serious point, one way in which dog owners can act more responsibly is to make sure that they do not buy puppies from industrial puppy farms, which are often
	sold through pet shops or online and too often result in dog rescue centres bursting at the seams with the numbers of puppies and older dogs in them. Will the Minister agree to meet me and dog rescue charities—Marc Abraham has done a lot of work in this area—to look at how we address the disgraceful issue of industrial puppy farms?

George Eustice: I commend the work the hon. Gentleman has done on this issue. I know he hosted a recent meeting on the subject in Parliament, which I attended. I would indeed be happy to meet him about the problem. We all know that part of the problem with out-of-control dogs stems from them not being raised or socialised properly in the first six months of their lives. That is why we need to look at the issue of the responsibility of dog breeders. We should remember that good laws are already in place requiring those breeding puppies for sale to have a licence from the local authority. We need to ensure that that is enforced more widely.

Julie Hilling: Will the Minister explain why he is ignoring all the dog charities and other agencies, including the RSPCA, the Royal College of Nursing and the police, and is not introducing dog control notices in the forthcoming Bill?

George Eustice: I have considered the issue carefully, and have concluded that, far from being more limited than the Scottish-style dog control notices, the community protection notices proposed by the Government have more scope and are more flexible. This week we have published guidance for practitioners. I think that there is concern not because the proposals for community protection notices are not good enough, but because there is not yet enough understanding of how they can be used.

Christopher Pincher: Regrettably I have no four-legged friend entered in the House of Commons dog show today—[Hon. Members: “Aah!”] I know, I know. Also regrettably, the number of dangerous dog attacks on guide and assistance dogs—which cost £50,000 to train—is rising. What steps might my hon. Friend take to increase the sentences that are handed down for such attacks?

George Eustice: That is a very good point, which has also been raised by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. In the summer, we consulted on proposals to increase the maximum penalties for dog attacks on people and assistance dogs. Such attacks can have a devastating effect on the victims. Attacks on assistance dogs can cause them to lose their confidence and become unable to help their owners. We are currently considering what sentences would be appropriate for such attacks.

Water Bills

Julie Elliott: What plans he has to protect consumers from excessive rises in water bills.

Dan Rogerson: Water bills are regulated by Ofwat, which sets price
	limits every five years. Government guidance to Ofwat in advance of the 2014 price review has emphasised the importance of delivering a fair deal for all customers, and of protecting customers who are struggling to pay their bills. We have also published guidance to help companies to introduce social tariffs for vulnerable customers.

Julie Elliott: There is a cost-of-living crisis in my constituency and throughout the country. Millions of households in England and Wales are experiencing water poverty. Will the Minister support Labour’s proposal to impose—not just recommend—a duty on water companies to introduce social tariffs to help struggling families to pay their bills?

Dan Rogerson: I entirely understand what the hon. Lady has said about the cost of living. We are all aware of the problem. I represent an area in which incomes are very low, and in which water bills are a significant issue. It is clear from our discussions with Ofwat—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has engaged in some recently—that it understands the importance of the issue, and believes that the benefits to water companies of, for example, low borrowing rates should be passed on to customers. I am pleased that companies are considering the introduction of social tariffs, and I shall continue to keep the matter under review.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate all who have been elevated to both Front Benches. We look forward to the return, in the very near future, of those of them who have served on the Select Committee—[Laughter]—in their ministerial capacity.
	Will my hon. Friend use his good offices to press Ofwat to ensure that the 2014 price review enables the necessary investment to be made in the infrastructure and in innovation? May I also tease out of him the date on which the Water Bill will be given its Second Reading, and can be scrutinised by Parliament?

Dan Rogerson: I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend, who chairs the Select Committee, was petitioning the Prime Minister to summon us back to it, and that our tenure on the Front Benches might be very brief.
	The timing of the Bill is, of course, a matter for those who manage our business. I look forward to debating the issues with colleagues in the House and, subsequently, in Committee.
	What my hon. Friend has said about investment in the sector is crucial. We have already managed, through our regime, to deliver huge investment in water infrastructure. We now want to establish a regime which, while being fair to customers, also attracts further investment, so that we can have an industry that is fit for the future.

Thomas Docherty: May I begin by paying tribute to the previous Minister who worked in a bipartisan manner throughout his term in office and welcoming both new members of the Government Front-Bench team? I should also thank the chairlady of the Select Committee for her tutelage of us all over the past three and a half years.
	Does the Minister understand that when households are struggling with inflation-busting water bills, it is
	simply unacceptable for water companies to try to avoid paying corporation tax? If he does, will he work with Opposition Members to make the necessary improvements to the forthcoming Water Bill?

Dan Rogerson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post and look forward to debating these issues with him. As we look at the regime the Bill is seeking to bring in, we can discuss some of these issues, although there are probably other key areas we will want to focus on. The issue of corporation tax is crucial across many industries and I look forward to hearing what the hon. Gentleman has to say on the subject as we move forward.

Topical Questions

Grahame Morris: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Owen Paterson: DEFRA’s priorities are growing the rural economy, improving the environment and safeguarding animal and plant health, and I am today pleased to announce £3 million of funding from the anaerobic digestion loan fund, which will enable farmers to obtain funding to set up small-scale anaerobic digestion plants. The technology will not only save farmers money on energy costs, but will provide them with the opportunity to boost their income by exporting electricity to the grid. It will also help them cut waste and reduce the amount of artificial fertilisers they use. This funding is an example of this Government’s commitment to sustainable economic growth and environmental improvement. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Grahame Morris: I want to ask about food banks and, in particular, about the answers the Minister gave a few moments ago in response to questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). I understand that in April 2013 DEFRA commissioned important research to review evidence on the landscape of food provision and access. Given that this information and research will be very helpful to Government in targeting policy to the most needy, why is it not being published? I know the Minister is new in post, but can he expedite this, because a promise was made that it would be posted on the Department’s website?

Owen Paterson: I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. We undertake research on a whole range of areas and this obviously cuts across a number of different Departments, with whom we are consulting.

Simon Wright: Will the Secretary of State ensure more people are able to enjoy access to woodlands, particularly those close to our towns and cities?

Dan Rogerson: We are consulting on the future of the publicly owned forest and management of forestry issues generally and looking at what we will take forward. There are many
	excellent landowners, such as the Woodland Trust and the National Trust, who encourage public access and enjoyment of woodland and I look forward to working with them and other landowners to ensure we increase access for everybody.

Huw Irranca-Davies: A National Audit Office report today shows the response to the horsemeat scandal was hampered by confusion caused by the coalition Government splitting the Food Standards Agency’s responsibilities in 2010. It also raises concerns over the reductions in food testing, public analysts and local officers working on food law enforcement since this Government came to power. So will Ministers now accept their share of responsibility—or is this the fault of the badgers?

George Eustice: The Department will look at this report from the NAO and study its recommendations very carefully, but I have to say there is no evidence that the division of the FSA’s role has contributed to this, and, more importantly, we have appointed Professor Chris Elliott to look at this whole issue in great detail and his report will be key.

Stephen Metcalfe: Given the importance of exports to the country’s economic recovery, what is my right hon. Friend doing to help producers and exporters open up foreign markets?

Owen Paterson: Only this week I was in Cologne, taking our largest ever delegation to the world’s largest food fair; last month, I was in Moscow, where we announced a trade deal opening up the market for beef and lamb which will be worth up to £100 million over three years; and our work last year in opening up China has led to a 591% increase in pork exports in the first six months of this year.

Stephen Timms: My constituents who work at Tate & Lyle have been very appreciative of the Secretary of State’s efforts to secure a level playing field for cane sugar refiners in the European market. His former ministerial team were very diligent on this issue. I welcome his new team and wonder whether he can reassure the House that they will be equally determined on this issue.

George Eustice: I can, indeed, give the right hon. Gentleman that reassurance. The EU sugar regime is one of the most distorting parts of the common agricultural policy, and we had great success in negotiating the removal of sugar beet quotas in 2017. However, he rightly says that we need now to take those trade barriers down, and time is of the essence. We are therefore pushing the European Commission to ensure that all opportunities to secure additional trade concessions are taken at the earliest opportunity.

Duncan Hames: The Secretary of State will recall the petition I sent him that was collected by Climate Friendly Bradford on Avon; more than 1,000 Wiltshire residents were calling for a charge on single-use plastic carrier bags. How will the Minister ensure that neither the Chancellor nor the supermarkets cling on to the cash it collects?

Dan Rogerson: Although in England we cannot mandate where the money will go, because the relevant primary legislation, the Climate Change Act 2008, does not allow for that, we will discuss with retailers how the money raised should be spent and encourage them to give the profits to good causes. We have an expectation that, as in Wales, the money raised should benefit good causes.

Graeme Morrice: Is the Secretary of State aware of the most recent piece of scientific research on the Cayman turtle farm? It supports the position of the World Society for the Protection of Animals that:
	“There is no humane way to farm sea turtles”.
	Will he, along with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, take decisive action to alleviate the suffering of these endangered animals?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The matter he raises is of real concern to a number of Members who have written to me. We are taking what actions we can, but we are the Government of the UK, and he has to remember that.

Stephen Mosley: Poaching in some parts of Africa is getting so bad that Tanzanian Minister Khamis Kagasheki has called for a shoot-to-kill policy to deal with poachers, following the loss of half of Tanzania’s elephants in the past three years. On current trends, it is estimated that the African elephant will be extinct in the wild by 2025. What action are the Government taking to tackle the illegal trade in endangered species?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this shocking issue, on which he is absolutely right. The problem is even worse in respect of rhinoceroses; we lose one every 11 hours. So this Government are taking a world lead. We are calling a conference on 13 February next year, and we intend to co-ordinate world action—with western countries, with the countries where these animals live and with the countries where there is significant demand—before these iconic species become extinct.

Julie Hilling: Whether or not the Government see sense next week and accept our amendments on dog control notices, that will not resolve all the issues relating to dangerous dogs, including controlling breeding, and ensuring that puppies are properly socialised and that children and adults are educated about dog ownership. Does the Minister agree that we still need a full dog welfare and control Bill?

George Eustice: Actually, I do not agree. There are lots of bits of legislation covering many areas, but the laws are in place. We need to ensure that they are better understood, which is why we have published guidance this week pointing out what community protection notices can do and how they can be used by practitioners.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Extreme brevity is now required.

Bob Neill: Will the Secretary of State meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) to discuss the persistent and serious breaches of control of the Waste4Fuel site on the boundary of our constituencies, which the Environment Agency appears to be unable to cope with?

Dan Rogerson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the concerns of his constituents about this site. I have looked into the issue, am aware of it and discuss it with the Environment Agency. If he and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington wish to meet me to discuss it, I would be happy to do so.

Joan Walley: Does the Minister share the concern of Stoke-on-Trent boat club, and the Association of Waterways Cruising Clubs all over the country, about DEFRA’s deferment of the decision to stop Environment Agency navigation waters going over to the Canal and River Trust? Will he urgently review that situation and raise it with the Treasury?

Dan Rogerson: The hon. Lady has obviously been concerned about these matters for some time. I would be happy to hear more from her about the details and perhaps we could take the matter forward on that basis.

Tim Farron: Do my right hon. and hon. Friends share my alarm at the growing practice of Natural England’s insisting on the removal of sheep from land under new stewardship projects? Given the absolute need for the UK to be able to provide more of its own food, is that not a dangerous step? Will Ministers take action?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, which touches on our conundrum in the hill areas, where we clearly want to increase food production but also want to improve the environment. We will be consulting shortly on whether we modulate a significant sum from pillar 1 to pillar 2 and what the shape and form of those pillar 2 schemes might be. I am absolutely clear that we have a real role to play in helping hill farmers to keep the hills looking as they do and to provide them with sufficient money to provide food.

Mr Speaker: I call Michael Connarty—not here.

Diana Johnson: Is it acceptable that properties built after 2009 and small businesses will not be covered by the Government’s new flood insurance scheme?

Owen Paterson: We are working very closely with the Association of British Insurers on the new scheme, which will replace the statement of principles, and we are looking in detail at a range of different options. We do not propose to extend the scheme to post-2009 properties.

Sheryll Murray: Local people have for many years expressed concern about the Whitsand bay dump site. They have identified an alternative site; will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the reclassification of that alternative site?

George Eustice: I know that the issue is important for my hon. Friend and I would be more than happy to meet her and others affected by the decision.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but I think that Mr Philip Hollobone must be the last questioner.

Philip Hollobone: To better understand the spread of TB in wildlife, why are the badgers that are being culled not being tested to see whether they are infected or not?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Let me clarify in simple terms: carcases that have been shot would not give an accurate reading following post-mortem.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Cathedral Congregations

David Nuttall: What lessons the Church of England has learned from the increasing size of congregations attending services at cathedrals.

Tony Baldry: I am glad to report that over the past 10 years there has been a 35% increase in average weekly attendance in cathedral services. A team from Cranmer Hall at St John’s college, Durham is conducting a detailed survey of the trends in increased cathedral attendance.

David Nuttall: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. It is indeed good news that there has been such a significant increase in the number of people worshiping in cathedrals over the past 10 years. Will the research seek to discover why attendance at services held in cathedrals has been going up at a time when attendance at many parish churches has been declining?

Tony Baldry: Absolutely; the research will seek to understand the detail of attendance trends at cathedrals and I hope that the results of the study will be published early next year.

Susan Elan Jones: I am sure that many of us would be of the view that the increased attendance in cathedrals must be down not only to the high standards of liturgy but to the fact that they have a diverse range of clergy. On the subject of churches and diversity, would the hon. Gentleman like to congratulate the Church in Wales on the decision to elect women as bishops? Would he say that there are great lessons to be learned for the Church of England, which is increasingly becoming a minority within the Anglican communion on that issue?

Tony Baldry: The House well knows that I very much look forward to the day when the Church of England can welcome women as bishops.

Syria and Egypt

Simon Hughes: What discussions the Church of England is having with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office regarding the protection of religious minorities in Syria and Egypt.

Tony Baldry: Following the Archbishop of Canterbury’s visit to the middle east in the summer, he met my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in July to discuss the vulnerable situation of religious minorities in Syria and Egypt. The Church of England has made representations to Foreign Office Ministers to suggest appointing an ambassador at large for religious freedom.

Simon Hughes: That is a welcome bit of news, both about the meeting and the initiative. May I reinforce the point that in Syria and Egypt and across the middle east and north Africa the decline in Christian communities is alarming and they are feeling horribly oppressed, as they are in many other Muslim countries of the world? Will my hon. Friend ask the commissioners and the Church in this country to make that a priority in the years ahead? They need our help, and they need to know that the rest of the Anglican communion is on their side.

Tony Baldry: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is difficult to underestimate what is happening. The International Society for Human Rights, a secular organisation based in Germany, estimates that 80% of all acts of religious discrimination in the world today are directed at Christians. The bishop of the Coptic Church in Egypt, based in London, has said that there is almost ethnic cleansing to eliminate Christianity and Christians in Egypt, so this is an issue to which we must all—the Church of England, the Foreign Office and civil society as a whole—give the highest priority. Whether it is people being murdered in Peshawar or churches being burnt in Baghdad, this is a terrible issue which must be addressed collectively.

Kerry McCarthy: I urge the hon. Gentleman to look at the recent report by Amnesty International into the attacks on Coptic Christians and on churches, in Egypt in particular but in the middle east more generally. I echo the request by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) for the hon. Gentleman to talk to his colleagues in the Foreign Office and ensure that this issue is an absolute priority for them.

Tony Baldry: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I reiterate what the Archbishop of Canterbury said on the Amnesty International report. Archbishop Justin said that he welcomed
	“this timely report from Amnesty International”
	and continued:
	“Attacks on any community are deplorable and any state has the responsibility to protect its citizens. The appalling attacks in August on the Christian community in Egypt highlight the need for all citizens to be duly protected. Despite the pressure they are
	under, by the grace of God, Christians in Egypt continue to do all they can to work for the good of the whole of the society of which they are an essential part.”
	It is very welcome that organisations such as Amnesty International are drawing attention to what is happening to Christian minorities in the middle east and elsewhere in the world.

Philip Hollobone: If Muslims were treated in this country as Christians are being treated in Egypt and Syria, there would be international outrage. Can the Church of England work with the papacy, the United Nations and other international organisations to have a real international initiative, perhaps together with the Arab League, to condemn all these atrocities before they get far, far worse?

Tony Baldry: The international community as a whole needs to recognise that the persecution of any faith group, and the persecution of Christians across the world, is wholly unacceptable and has to stop.

Food Banks

Diana Johnson: What work the Church of England is undertaking to support food banks in local communities; and if he will make a statement.

Tony Baldry: Many parish churches are closely involved in running and supporting food banks all across the country, and a recent report from the Church Urban Fund found that four out of five churches are supporting a food bank in one or more ways.

Diana Johnson: I was pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman just said about the progress made in the Church of Wales. The fight obviously continues in the Church of England to ordain women bishops. On the increasing number of people using food banks, however, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Archbishop of Canterbury that
	“there is a danger…that people are categorised, that all people on benefit are seen as scroungers and that’s clearly completely untrue”?

Tony Baldry: The benefits system exists to ensure that those who are entitled to benefits receive benefits. In respect of food banks, the question really is one of concern, which has been raised earlier in the House today, about the increase in the use of food banks. I would like to report to the House that the Church of England’s mission and public affairs team, together with Oxfam and the Child Poverty Action Group, are examining the underlying reasons for the rapid growth in the use of food banks, and will recommend changes in policy and practice that would help to reduce the use of food banks in the longer term.

Dennis Skinner: Isn’t he a food bank himself? [Laughter.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I will not repeat what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) has just said from a sedentary position. The Second Church Estates Commissioner is an extremely distinguished Member, but he is not what was said of him from a sedentary position.

Tony Baldry: If we were not discussing such an important subject as food banks, Mr Speaker, I would comment to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) that one of the great things about this place is that one must have humility. Ever since I received my knighthood, the family at home have called me “Sir Cumference Hippo”, so I would not worry too much.

Mr Speaker: We appreciate that from the hon. Gentleman, with his unfailing sense of humour.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—

Accountancy and Auditing Standards

Barry Sheerman: What steps the Public Accounts Commission is taking to encourage improvements in the quality and standard of training in the accountancy and audit professions.

Edward Leigh: The Public Accounts Commission has a number of statutory functions in respect of the National Audit Office, including approving its corporate strategy, agreeing and laying its estimate and appointing non-executive members of the NAO board. Naturally we have no direct responsibility for training, but we always press the NAO to fulfil fully its obligations on training.

Barry Sheerman: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that many of us who had employees in the banking sector and friends who had a stake in the banking sector were horrified by the lack of ethics of the accountancy profession when it came to the basic job of auditing the banks and auditing other big corporations where they did it badly. Surely we should speak up through the Commission about ethics, responsibility and moral certitude in accountancy.

Edward Leigh: That is a very interesting question but it is rather wide of our responsibilities. I wish we had those responsibilities, but we are responsible only for the budget and the annual report of the National Audit Office, which audits accounts in the public, not the private, sector, so I am sorry I cannot do more for the hon. Gentleman.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Banbury, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Bats in Churches

Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions he has had with Natural England on bats in churches; and if he will make a statement.

Tony Baldry: I understand from Natural England that the licence application for St Hilda’s in my hon. Friend’s constituency was submitted last Monday and a decision is expected this week. Following the granting of a licence, the work would start on site next week, blocking the access points of bats. The application is for the exclusion of bats from the interior of the church only, so this solution is intended to allow the interior of St Hilda’s church to be completely free from bats, while allowing their continued use of the exterior of the building.

Anne McIntosh: It is a source of some cynicism that the licence was issued or applied for only after my question regarding bats having the run of the church, St Hilda’s at Ellerburn, appeared on the Order Paper. As £30,000 of taxpayers’ money has been spent conducting a survey which has as yet led to no result, will my hon. Friend exert all his influence on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to issue the licence so that the congregation can meet and use the interior of the church free from intrusion by bats?

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is worth recording that this one single parish church has had to spend tens of thousands of pounds so far just to get to this position. We have to improve the whole situation in relation to bats in churches. It is not a joking matter. Churches are not field barns; they are places of worship, and it cannot be right that bats can be excluded from reopened railway tunnels and the living spaces of domestic homes, but it is so difficult for active community buildings such as churches to resolve such an issue.

Church Credit Union

Fiona Bruce: What progress the Church Commissioners have made on plans for a credit union.

Tony Baldry: The Church of England is developing a three-pronged strategy in its work with credit unions. The first is to link parish churches to local credit unions to offer support where any is available. The second is to set up an archbishops taskforce to work with the credit union movement and the local banking sector to produce credible alternatives which offer financially responsible products and services. The third is the plan to found the Church’s credit union, primarily for clergy and Church employees.

Fiona Bruce: I welcome the work the Church is doing to promote the good work of credit unions. Will my hon. Friend also update the House on the involvement of the Church Commissioners in the proposed new bank, Williams & Glyn’s, which I understand is to lend to local small and medium-sized enterprises in particular?

Tony Baldry: I am glad to be able to report to the House that the Church Commissioners were part of a consortium of investors that will be partnering with Royal Bank of Scotland to set up a new bank, Williams & Glyn’s. It will be a vigorous challenger bank which is intended to set up the highest ethical standards and give consumers more choice, and I hope that it will work out how we can better help some of those presently denied access to financial services.

Damian Hinds: With regard to the first of my hon. Friend’s three prongs, are there any sub-prongs, by which I mean ways that local parishes can work with credit unions, perhaps through the use of premises, the recruitment of volunteers and board members, and, critically, raise awareness by marketing the credit unions?

Tony Baldry: Absolutely; the Church of England is rich in resource, buildings and expertise, and we want to share all of that. We want to encourage many more credit unions to be established across the country.

Mr Speaker: Mr Kevan Jones—not here.

Scrap Metal

Andrew Stephenson: What steps the Church Commissioners are taking to publicise the introduction of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act on 1 October 2013; and what steps churches are taking to protect themselves from lead theft.

Tony Baldry: The Church of England has been working closely with its insurer, Ecclesiastical, to promote the “Hands off our church roofs” campaign, and the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013, which came into force on 1 October, is extremely welcome. Overall, we hope that we can promote the various deterrence methods available to protect church roofs and metal artefacts from theft.

Andrew Stephenson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that since it was made clear that that legislation would be introduced there has been a significant reduction in the incidence of metal theft? Although vigilance is still needed, does not the passing of the Act mean that we are no longer fighting a losing battle?

Tony Baldry: The whole House will be really pleased about the introduction of the Act, because although we still have some way to go, the reduction in the incidence of metal theft has been substantial. Although churches of course still need to use CCTV, SmartWater and so forth, the fact that scrap metal can no longer be traded for cash—people can no longer rip lead from roofs and sell it the next morning for cash to a local dealer; it is now a cashless business—is clearly already having a considerable impact on ensuring that our heritage does not continue to be ripped off.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 14 October—Motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (day 1).
	Tuesday 15 October—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, followed by a motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Deep Sea Mining Bill.
	Wednesday 16 October—Opposition day (7th allotted day). There will be a debate on zero-hours contracts, followed by a debate on high streets and changes to use orders. Both debates with arise on an Opposition motion.
	Thursday 17 October—A debate on a motion relating to defence reforms, followed by a debate on a motion relating to funding support for deaf and young people. The subjects for both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 18 October—Private Members’ Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 21 October will include:
	Monday 21 October—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Tuesday 22 October—Second Reading of the Immigration Bill, followed by a motion to approve a European document relating to the European public prosecutor’s office.
	Wednesday 23 October—Opposition day (8th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 24 October—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 25 October—Private Members’ Bills.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. May I begin by echoing the Prime Minister in congratulating Professor Higgs, this year’s joint winner of the Nobel prize for physics for his work in explaining why the universe has mass? I think his theory may even be able to explain how the badgers managed to move the goalposts.
	I note that the Offender Rehabilitation Bill is still strangely absent from future business, despite the fact that it completed its Lords stages well before the summer recess. The Leader of the House will know that on Report in the other place the Government lost a crucial vote and that clause 1 now reads:
	“No alteration or reform may be made to the structure of the probation service unless the proposals have been laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.”
	We have had no such document, so will he explain why the Government have published contracts to sell off £800 million-worth of probation services and why probation staff have been given notice that they might be offloaded to companies such as G4S or Serco next spring?
	It looks to me as though the Government are deliberately ignoring the will of Parliament by delaying the passage of this Bill until after they have privatised the probation service, so rendering their defeat in the Lords irrelevant. Could the Leader of the House prove that my theory is wrong by telling me when we can expect to see the Bill in this House?
	The Government succeeded in rushing through their sinister gagging Bill last night without giving us adequate time for scrutiny. It now goes on to the Lords in similar haste so that the Government can get their gag in place in time for the next election. Given that Parliament has not been given the chance to scrutinise the Bill properly and it was not consulted on before it was published, an independent commission has been established to analyse its impact. Will the Leader of the House join me in giving evidence to that commission, and will he give his assurance that the Government will not proceed with the Bill until the findings are published?
	We are just back from the conference recess and we learned a lot from the conferences of the two parties in power. The Liberal Democrats believe they have a right to be ensconced in their ministerial cars in perpetuity, whoever wins the election, and the Tories dream of a land of hope and glory. The reality is that, with this incompetent Government, it is more a land of hopeless Tories. I also understand that, following his conference speech, the Business Secretary has changed his voicemail to that old Liberal Democrat staple, “Please leave a message after the high moral tone.”
	I am relieved to see both the Leader of the House and his deputy, and, indeed, the Patronage Secretary, in their place after the Government reshuffle at the beginning of the week. Reshuffles on either side are a difficult time for everyone and I want to take a moment to recognise the service of all those leaving their respective Front Benches as a result of Monday’s events. The Leader of the House and I have both been on the right and wrong sides of reshuffles in our time, so we have a personal insight into what people go through. I salute the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who lost his Government job on Monday and was good natured enough to repeat a tweet he received after he had been given the bad news, which said:
	“Fisheries Minister sacked. Word is he’s gutted”.
	Inexplicably, our friends in the Press Gallery treat reshuffle day as though it were a nerve-wracking episode of “The X Factor”. All that was missing on Monday was some tense music and Dermot O’Leary giving out hugs at the end of Downing street, although I did think that some aspects of the Government’s reshuffle really were worthy of reality TV. First, a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), was sacked for being too right wing. Given that criterion, I am surprised the Deputy Prime Minister managed to spare himself. Then we realised that the Prime Minister’s new strategy to stop his Back-Bench rebellions was to give as many people as possible a job. It seems that a small state needs a very big Government. It then emerged that the Deputy Prime Minister had put a conspiracy theorist in the Home Office behind the back of the furious Home Secretary. I understand that the book written by the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) is shooting up the Amazon charts as a result of all the unwanted publicity. I am sure we all look forward to the new
	Minister telling us what really happened at Roswell, whether NASA faked the moon landings and whether Elvis ever did actually leave the building.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. I am enjoying our return to business questions after the recess.
	I join the shadow Leader of the House and our respective party leaders in congratulating Professor Peter Higgs. It is wonderful that this country has produced so many leading scientists and, indeed, recipients of Nobel prizes. That is something that people in Russia might like to ponder when they call us a small country. I am reminded that there is one college in the small city of Cambridge on this small island that has more Nobel prize winners than the whole of Russia.
	I am not yet in a position to enlighten the House on the timetable for our consideration of the Offender Rehabilitation Bill. I will announce that in due course. The Ministry of Justice is rightly proceeding with plans that will improve the quality of probation services and, importantly, offer probation services to those who leave prison after short sentences. That is an important reform and I look forward to the consideration of the Bill in this House.
	The shadow Leader of the House tried to return to the debate on the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. However, it has now left this House. I met Lesley-Anne Alexander, Stephen Bubb and others to discuss the establishment of the commission. I made it clear that we would take account of anything that they said, but that it was important for them to consider the issues more quickly. They are establishing the commission two and a half months after the Bill was published and in the midst of its passage. I will gladly hear what they have to say, but we will proceed with the Bill in the Lords as planned. As we made clear in yesterday’s debate, we have a timetable for the passage of the Bill. It received full scrutiny on the Floor of this House and I know that their lordships will do a similar thing in their House.
	I will not dwell on particular aspects of the reshuffle. As the shadow Leader of the House kindly observed, we have all been subject to these things over the years. My observation is that what goes around comes around. I agree with her that a number of my colleagues have given very good service as Ministers. We very much appreciate that and thank them for it.
	We must always be aware that one can contribute to public life not only through ministerial office, but through many other forms of service in this House and in public life more generally. I left the shadow Cabinet and sat as a Back Bencher for a couple of years. That did not mean that I could not make a significant contribution. For example, I helped to write the provision in the Communications Act 2003 that provided that media mergers should be subject to a public interest test in the same way as other mergers, which has been found to be of considerable use. I therefore encourage my colleagues who have left the Government most recently to reflect on the other opportunities for public service.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Today, we will rightly have a debate on the funding of local councils. May we also have a debate on
	the future of small local councils? My constituency contains the smallest local council in England, which is finding it nigh on impossible to survive. We need to consider how we will fund small councils not only for the next two years, but for the next decade. We must consider whether they can survive in the changing world in which we live, given the recession that we are all facing.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an important point about funding. If he has an opportunity to speak in today’s debate, I am sure that it will be relevant. I will say two things. First, while small local authorities have a valuable role in ensuring that democracy is accessible and relevant to their populations, many such public authorities have successfully explored ways of sharing costs and back-office services with other authorities, and that is very useful. Secondly, the BBC survey discovered that it is possible to secure more and better services with less money. That point will be important in this afternoon’s debate. It illustrates how public services have responded to the tough times that we inherited from the Labour Government and is a credit to those who are running local authorities.

Dave Watts: Given that the general public think their regulators are ineffective, can time be found for a debate on whether we should replace the current regulators with organisations that can stop British consumers being ripped off?

Andrew Lansley: It is particularly important that we ensure that regulators and the competition authorities are effective. Competition is what delivers for consumers, and regulators have access to concurrent competition powers with the competition authorities. We need to be sure that those powers are being used to deliver the benefits for consumers that competition should deliver.

David Heath: I understand that we are now to call High Speed 2 the north-south railway. Will the Leader of the House find an opportunity for the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House during the next week to announce that just fraction of that investment could be spent on providing a barely adequate east-west railway?

Andrew Lansley: It is a great pleasure to have my hon. Friend here to ask a question. He was a distinguished occupant of the post of Deputy Leader of the House, and we thank him for that and for his work in his subsequent responsibilities related to farming.
	Over the next few years, up to about 2020, there will be much larger investment elsewhere in Network Rail than in HS2. It is not absorbing resources that would otherwise be available for the rest of the network. On the contrary, we have among the largest ever investment programmes elsewhere in the rail system, and rightly so. Just as HS2 will meet clear north-south capacity requirements, we need other investment to meet capacity needs elsewhere.

Barry Sheerman: Now that we are back in operation, may I ask the Leader of the House if we can reflect on something that troubles me—the growth of monopolies in almost every sector of life? Whether we are talking about the energy sector, the supermarkets or transport, there are organisations
	with a monopolistic tendency to do down the consumer. May we have a full debate on monopolies and how we regulate them?

Andrew Lansley: I think that is exactly the same point that the hon. Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts) made, and in a sense I think we agree about it. We need competition if we are to deliver benefits to consumers, and we need it to be robust. That competition is not driven naturally in markets; it has to be regulated for by authorities. We should not have a free-for-all in markets, because of the tendency towards monopoly. We must have effective competition regulation to make competition happen, and this Government have been keen to ensure that it is in place. To be fair to the previous Government, they also did that under competition and enterprise Acts. This country has established what is regarded as one of the more effective competition regimes, but we must continuously be vigilant and use the competition authorities to deliver it.

Oliver Colvile: As my right hon. Friend knows, Plymouth university was named in the top 300 in last week’s Times Higher Education world rankings, putting it in the top 1.5% globally. Will he join me in congratulating it on its remarkable feat? May we have a debate on the role of universities in delivering growth in our economy both here in Britain and globally?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right, and I join him in expressing appreciation for the tremendous progress that Plymouth university has made and the standards that it is achieving. He and other Members will be well aware not only of the comparative strengths in our higher education system, which are dramatic, but of the contribution that they are making to our economic recovery and our future prospects. If we are going to win the global race, it will be on the basis of knowledge-based industries. The connection between universities and higher education and the new industries of the future is critical.

David Wright: May we have a debate on the privatisation strategy, which colleagues have mentioned, with a particular focus on Royal Mail? Many people feel that that sale is outrageous and that a lot of smaller investors have been locked out of the process by the fee level.

Andrew Lansley: This House passed legislation that permitted the privatisation to go ahead, and many small investors will have seen the advantage in seeking to be party to that privatisation and part of the future of Royal Mail—a future that will be stronger by virtue of its access to private capital.

James Morris: Today is world mental health day, and mental illness will be one of the major health challenges we face over the next 20 years. May we have a debate on the vital issue of achieving parity of esteem between physical and mental health conditions in the national health service?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and it is right to recall that issue today. The Backbench Business Committee has helpfully scheduled debates in the House on two occasions, which has allowed the House to make
	a signal contribution to identifying the problems associated with stigma and discrimination related to mental health. We should not rest on that, however, and must pursue the issue further. The Time To Change campaign—which has now rolled out across the country, supported by £60 million of Government funding—is capable of making a big difference. I recall it was trialled in Cambridgeshire, and a lot of people appreciated how it enabled many people to change their views about the impact and character of mental health problems, which so many people in all sorts of families suffer from.

Thomas Docherty: On 16 August and 2 September I wrote to the Business Secretary on two matters: first, the Government’s role in selling fake bomb detectors to other countries, and secondly, the export of chemicals that could be used to make chemical weapons in Syria. I have not received a reply to either letter and I wonder whether the Leader of the House’s wonderful civil servants could have a word with their counterparts in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to find out why the courtesies of the House are not being followed.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, of course. I will be glad to do that as I regard it as one of my responsibilities to assist Members in ensuring that we respond promptly—timeously, I should say—to requests for information and representations to Ministers.

Andrew Selous: May we have a debate on job creation and the possible impact of tax rises on larger businesses? Last week I visited Honeytop Speciality Foods in my constituency—a company that employs 900 people and is creating 200 extra jobs over the next month. It has exported naan bread to India and made Dunstable the crumpet capital of the United Kingdom. I do not want to see anything that would threaten investment and the creation of full-time British jobs.

Andrew Lansley: Next time I am delayed by a traffic jam on the A5 in Dunstable I will take time out to enjoy a crumpet. I am grateful to my hon. Friend because it is important to illustrate that when we mention the 1.4 million new private sector jobs created since the election, we sometimes lose the human character behind that big number. Those 200 extra jobs in his constituency show that human benefit because these are people in jobs who are bringing home good salaries and changing their economic prospects and those of their town. That is multiplied many thousands of times across the country, and it is right for him to draw attention to the importance of supporting that.

Jonathan Ashworth: Further to the answer of the Leader of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), a few weeks ago I wrote to the Home Secretary about her proposal for a £3,000 visa bond on visitors from India and Pakistan, which is causing consternation in my constituency. Last week a Home Office official rang my office to say that they were sorry, but there is a 12-month backlog of correspondence and they are waiting for the Home Secretary to sign those letters. Does the Leader of the House think that is acceptable?

Andrew Lansley: If I may, I will speak to the Home Office and see what the position is. I am sure there is not a 12-month backlog for Home Office correspondence, but I will find out the position and report back to the hon. Gentleman.

Bob Russell: May we have a debate on the salaries and wages to be paid to staff in the national health service? There have been reports that there will be no wage increase next year, but one is expected. Does the Leader of the House agree that we rely very much on the dedication and hard work of our NHS staff, that we should not treat them in that way, and that they should not be taken for granted in that way?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will be aware that pay in the NHS is the subject of independent pay review. Therefore, to that extent, the recommendations on future pay will wait on the results of independent review. It is quite proper that the Government, in that context, should provide evidence to the pay review, which has happened. The affordability of any pay rise must have a bearing on that evidence, bearing in mind the overall Government approach, which is for the overall increase in pay to be of the order of 1% in the year ahead. As I know very well, there is contractual pay progression in the NHS. When I was Health Secretary, that was something of the order of 1.4% per year in terms of pay. I believe it has increased recently. As he will understand, there is an obvious relationship between the affordability of progression pay of that kind and any headline basic pay increase.

Robert Flello: I have previously asked a question on the sale by the Ministry of Justice of the former magistrates court at Fenton town hall, to which I received a reply stating that the Ministry of Justice wanted to receive maximum funds for the sale. Given that neither the Ministry of Justice nor its predecessor Departments have ever paid so much as a penny to the people of Stoke-on-Trent to buy or rent the building, may we have a debate in Government time on Government Departments selling buildings that properly belong to local people? Perhaps we could have the debate before the petition is delivered to No. 10, which will happen soon. It is outrageous that the MOJ is selling a building that belongs to the people of Stoke-on-Trent, who have never received a penny for it.

Andrew Lansley: If I may, I will look at the correspondence—I recall that the hon. Gentleman rightly raised the question previously and has received a reply. If the MOJ has proper ownership of a building, it must, not least in the interest of the taxpayer, ensure that it realises best value for it, but the Government have been clear on the opportunities local communities should have in relation to assets of community value. I cannot promise a debate, but I will look at the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Julian Smith: As part of its reporting of national security issues, The Guardian has not denied sending the detailed family and personal information of our security agents across borders. That is illegal and it is threatening our agents and their families. May we have a statement from the Home Secretary to clarify that the law will be upheld, whether or not the organisation involved is hiding behind the fig leaf of journalism?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend and the House know that the freedom of speech we prize so highly comes with a responsibility. Members of the House and the public will have been struck by what the director general of MI5 said this week. I am sure he was right to say what he said. In that context, I will ask the Home Secretary to consider my hon. Friend’s point and how she might inform the House in due course, but it seems to me that, regardless of any action taken by the Government, it is incumbent on the press—meaning, in this context, The Guardian—to exercise accountability for its decisions.

Keith Vaz: May I declare my interest and remind the Leader of the House that 1 million people in this country have undiagnosed diabetes? He is the architect of the health and wellbeing boards. May we have a statement or debate on the amount of money they are spending to create awareness of the condition among the general public? I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), for the good work she did on diabetes before she was moved from the Department of Health.

Andrew Lansley: I join the right hon. Gentleman in thanking the Under-Secretary for the work she did, which has taken us into a new era in public health. We are protecting the real value of the resources within the NHS budget, which we are increasing in real terms, but a larger increase is going to public health, because, as he correctly identifies, if we can anticipate future illness and act to prevent it, it is important that we do so—in the case of diabetes, early diagnosis and intervention has successful outcomes. Health and wellbeing boards, as part of their joint commissioning in public health, will look at how they can ensure that people access diagnoses of the conditions that place them at risk.

Anne-Marie Morris: Given the importance of localism, which the Government have recognised, and in the light of the new powers communities have been given to influence housing decisions in their area, does the Leader of the House agree that the time is now right for a debate on a community right of appeal in the planning process? That is not the same thing as a third party right, which the Government have considered and rejected, but at the moment local communities feel disfranchised in the appeal process.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend might like to note that on Monday 21 October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will be here with his colleagues and she may consider it worth her while to raise this issue then. We must be careful in this context. It is important to ensure, as we have, that we strengthen the local or community voice in the establishment of local development frameworks and—as I have seen done very effectively—through neighbourhood plans, to create a framework so that those who exercise their right to bring forward development on land they own or have acquired do so in the context of the community’s view about the use of land in their area. Otherwise, we might run the risk of a chilling effect on development as a consequence of subsequent rights of appeal for the community against planning permissions that have been granted.

Nick Smith: Demand at Trussell Trust food banks has gone up 800% under this Government. When can we have a debate on this cost of living crisis?

Andrew Lansley: We are continually engaging in a debate on the issues relating to cost of living, and how families are able to cope with the consequences of the reduction of wealth in this country by 7.2% under the last Government, in the most serious recession we have faced in a century. It is inconceivable that such a reduction in wealth would not have consequences across society. Fortunately the number of workless households is now at its lowest level, and those who are in work are increasingly finding that their tax bills are going down. Inevitably and rightly, there are charitable and other endeavours to help those people who are in hardship, just as the benefit system should. We will have further opportunities to debate how we can target that support to best effect, and I look forward to those.

Nigel Evans: Perhaps we could have a wider debate on planning laws. The issue that has had a real impact on the Ribble Valley, whose core strategy is not in place, is the number of speculative planning applications that have been put in. The local council turns them down, they go to appeal and the decisions are overturned. It is not only communities that feel frustrated, but local councillors, who wonder what the use is in rejecting such planning applications only to have their decisions overturned time and again.

Andrew Lansley: I completely understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, not least because South Cambridgeshire—he will not be surprised to learn—has a heavy demand for new housing and many applications. We want to ensure that we also meet housing need by having local plans in place, including neighbourhood plans, so that decisions can be made consistent with the local understanding of how planning should be structured in the area. That is what needs to happen. If those local plans show how they will meet the housing demand for the next five years, they should be robust in the face of challenge.

Phil Wilson: May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Education on his announcement that only the first entry results for GCSEs will count towards school league tables? Any improvement in a pupil’s progress through his or her hard work and excellent teaching will not be counted. Is that not the wrong way to deal with multiple exam entries?

Andrew Lansley: It is important to have clear and meaningful indicators of school performance. If I may, I will ask a Minister at the Department to respond to the point the hon. Gentleman rightly raises, rather than attempt to do so myself.

Edward Leigh: With regard to private Members’ Bills and the forthcoming return of the European Union (Referendum) Bill, will the Leader of the House remind the House that the Bill is such a beautiful yet fragile flower that seeking to improve it by amending it will be about as useful to its life as throwing a gallon of poison over it?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This important Bill is drafted in a straightforward way. Even with the best will in the world—he is very knowledgeable
	about the procedures of the House—seeking to improve private Members’ Bills in a way that is no more than tinkering risks prejudicing them. Those who, like me, share the view that the Bill should pass—it will give people the say that they should have, and at the right time, in the future of this country’s relationship with Europe—should accept that and get on with it.

Tom Blenkinsop: Total UK production decreased by 1.1% between July 2013 and August 2013, with manufacturing decreasing by 1.2%. Between August 2012 and August 2013, production output decreased by 1.5%. Investment in plant and machinery for factories remains below 2007 levels. The Leader of the House talks about the global race and the Chancellor talks about the march of the makers. May we have a debate on manufacturing and talk about why UK manufacturing is in full retreat at the moment?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to remind the House that business confidence is up, consumer confidence is up, exports are up, construction is up, manufacturing is up, growth forecasts are up, and that only this week the International Monetary Fund’s international outlook upgraded its forecast for the UK economy for this year and next year by more than any other major economy.

Jake Berry: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House to make a statement about the recent changes proposed in Europe to both the packaging of tobacco and the banning of menthol cigarettes? While we all support anything that reduces the amount of people who take up smoking and reduces the number of cigarettes that people smoke, the House needs to have the opportunity to debate this serious health issue.

Andrew Lansley: These are important issues and the House will want to consider the agreement in Europe this week on the tobacco directive. Rather than the Secretary of State coming to the House to make a statement, the proper route is for the issue to be scrutinised by the European Scrutiny Committee. If the Committee then recommends a debate in the House, we will seek to achieve that.

Kerry McCarthy: I have been contacted by a number of parents who are concerned about the Prime Minister’s announcement at the Conservative party conference on “earn or learn”. This might just be one of the attention grabbing gimmicks we expect from the Government during conference season, but people are concerned about it. May we have a debate so that the Government do not rush into this ill-thought-out policy?

Andrew Lansley: Parents should be encouraged by what the Prime Minister has said. All indicators regarding young people’s prospects suggest that they should be in either education, employment or training. Not being in education, employment or training can cause serious damage to their prospects. We are setting out to minimise the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training, and I hope the hon. Lady supports that.

Andrew Bridgen: It was announced last week that developers had signed a legal agreement with Blaenau Gwent council for construction of the Circuit of Wales. It was also announced that the project will be part-funded by the Welsh Government. May we therefore have a debate on the subject of devolved Governments using public funds potentially to distort markets—in this case, a matter of great concern to the Association of Motor Racing Circuit Owners?

Andrew Lansley: I need to point out that one of my constituents is the chief executive of the Heads of the Valleys Development Company, so I will make no comment about that. I will, of course, ask my colleagues in the Treasury to respond to my hon. Friend’s point.

Kevin Brennan: May we have a debate on why the Government are refusing to do anything about the scandal of rip-off premium rate phone lines? The Which? report out today shows that this is a continuing scandal, yet I understand that the Government plan to take no action on it. Why are the Government always on the side of rip-off big business rather than the little guy?

Andrew Lansley: On the contrary, the Government have been very clear that public services should not use premium rates so that people can access public services without paying a premium price to do so. If I may say so, when I was Secretary of State for Health, the roll-out of 111 as a service could be distinguished in a number of ways from its predecessor service NHS Direct, including being free to those who use it. There is a wider issue about the use and impact of premium rate services, particularly from utility companies and the like: customers, and particularly vulnerable people, should be able to access them without having to pay an extra charge. I shall ask colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to respond to the hon. Gentleman on this point.

John Glen: The closure of the A344 alongside Stonehenge appears to have caused chaos along the A303. The Stonehenge traffic action group is very keen for the roads Minister to make a statement on progress made towards dualling this infamous stretch of road. Will the Leader of the House ensure that that happens?

Andrew Lansley: I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point. I sat in a queue on the A303 in August, so I had the benefit of that experience myself. I will, of course, ask my colleagues at the Department for Transport about this. As my hon. Friend and the House knows, the Department is well aware of the problem and is seeking to deal with it. I hope that, by the end of the year, it will be in a position to make announcements as a result of its study of the relevant options.

Bill Esterson: My local authority wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) about cuts to the fire service on Merseyside. The reply it received, however, was rather disappointing because it came from a civil servant and not from the Minister. Will the Leader of the
	House confirm that replies to local authorities, especially on such important matters, should come from a Minister, not a civil servant?

Andrew Lansley: If I may, I will check the position with the Minister responsible for the fire the service, who is assiduous in his duties. I know that he would normally expect to respond to local authorities on this issue; we need to know what happened. It might have had something to do with the summer recess and an attempt to ensure that the local authority received an early reply, but I will inquire into the circumstances.

Mark Williams: May we have a debate on the lamentably slow way in which the banks are dealing with cases of alleged mis-selling of interest rate swap products, which affected many businesses across the country, and on the fact that tailored business loans, in respect of which similar products have the same damaging implications for people’s livelihoods and businesses, are not included in the review at all?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right to raise these issues and to be persistent in raising them. We need the banks to come forward with their compensation schemes as quickly as possible. I will raise my hon. Friend’s particular point with colleagues in the Treasury and ask them to respond.

Diana Johnson: rose—

Mr Speaker: Colleagues may feel that, when it comes to Opposition Back Benchers, I have left the best until last.

Diana Johnson: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	On 9 August, the Hull Daily Mailled with the following report:
	“Yesterday the Prime Minister…said A & E departments would get a share of the money over the next two years, to ensure they are fully prepared for winter.”
	On 10 September, I learned that Hull will not get a penny of the £250 million set aside for this winter. May we have a debate on why Hull, despite its real needs, is not getting a fair share of funding—it applies to council funding, too—from this Government?

Andrew Lansley: As the hon. Lady will recall, a written statement reported that there had been full consultation between the Department, Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority to establish how resources could be used to offset the specific risk of their not meeting the required service performance standards. In fact, Addenbrooke’s hospital, which is in my constituency, received no resources, although its staff had worked immensely hard to maintain their performance standards. Ministers are only too aware of the issue, but they have focused their additional resources on managing the greatest risks throughout the country.

Peter Bone: I understand that in Wellingborough the song “Maggie May” is being sung with great gusto today following the publication by the Home Secretary of the Immigration Bill. Lefties hate the Bill, the Labour party is against it, and I
	understand that some Liberal Democrat MPs are queasy about it—so it is clearly the right Bill. Will the Leader of the House insist that the Immigration Minister come to the House and introduce it as a matter of urgency?

Andrew Lansley: I am happy to report that the Immigration Minister is available and ready to introduce the Bill presently. As my hon. Friend will have noted, I have announced a date for its Second Reading, so that we can make progress with a vital measure that will ensure fairness in relation to access to services and the country’s immigration structures.

Philip Hollobone: Like me, the Leader of the House represents constituents who are heavily affected by the A14. He will have been as saddened as I was to learn of a fatal car accident that occurred in the summer on the A14 near Kettering, in which two young people in their twenties lost their lives because a drunk driver was driving along the road in the wrong direction. That drunk driver was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment by Northampton Crown court. Along with many of my constituents, I feel that that simply is not enough. May we have a statement from the Ministry of Justice, or a debate on the Floor of the House, about the sentences that are imposed on people who kill passengers on our roads as a result of either bad driving or drink-driving?

Andrew Lansley: I entirely share my hon. Friend’s distress at what happened. The character of such events, not only on the A14 but on other roads, is very disturbing. My hon. Friend may have heard the Prime Minister say, during Prime Minister’s Question Time yesterday, that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice had asked the Sentencing Council to review sentences for driving offences, including the offence of causing death through dangerous driving. I will refer my hon. Friend’s question to the Secretary of State for Justice, and will try to establish when he may be able to report further on the issue.

Jason McCartney: May we have a debate on the booming manufacturing sector in Yorkshire? Today, we heard the sweet news that Haribo is to open a new £92 million factory in the county, which will provide 300 new jobs and which has received £6.4 million from the regional growth fund. In my patch, we learnt over the summer that Disposables UK would be moving to new premises; Wentworth Valve is also moving to new premises, and the order books of Camira Fabrics are bulging. Will my right hon. Friend allocate plenty of time for a long debate on the manufacturing success in Yorkshire?

Andrew Lansley: That is immensely encouraging news from the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I am delighted to hear it. I have been struck by the number of new projects that are being supported by the regional growth fund. I believe that about half a million new jobs will be associated with projects that are receiving such support, or for which such support is in the pipeline.
	As we all know, creating the right economic framework is the fundamental way of bringing new investment to the country and promoting new investment in companies here. That is what the Government are doing and what we will continue to do, and I know that, as a consequence, more companies will report having received new investment of the kind to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Greg Mulholland: May we have a debate on how councils are responding to community applications for “assets of community value” registrations? Leeds city council recently turned down applications for a playing field and a swimming pool in Headingley and Hyde Park, where there are very few such facilities, on the grounds that the community would not realistically be able to buy them. I do not think that that is appropriate in terms of legislation. May we have a debate to establish whether the community could at least try to bid for those facilities?

Andrew Lansley: That is an important point. I will ask Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government to respond specifically on how the new legislation should be interpreted in relation to what should be entered on to the register of community assets and whether some pre-emptive decision should be made about whether the community would be able to bid for that. It is important that assets of community value can include sports fields and sports facilities, and the right to bid really applies, of course, when that list of community assets is established, so the point my hon. Friend makes is important.

Neil Carmichael: The Education Committee recently published a report on school governance and school improvement. The report has generated some interesting comments from the Government, so the Committee would like to have a debate in this Chamber. Will the Lord Privy Seal consider that request, and may I say that I hope that debate is held in this Chamber so we can all focus on what is an important step in the right direction through improving accountability and localism in our schools?

Andrew Lansley: I encourage the Select Committee to seek time for such a debate through the Liaison Committee, which has a certain allocation of time, although the Backbench Business Committee has substantial time available in the week after next, and not only on Thursday, so I hope it will take good advantage of that, not just in respect of the school governance issue but also in light of what we have read this week in the OECD report. I have to say I was staggered by this simple fact, if by nothing else: we are among the three highest performing countries in literacy for 55 to 65-year-olds, but we are among the bottom three countries in literacy proficiency among 16 to 24-year-olds. All of us in public service and public office should be ashamed of the fact that we are not making progress in improving literacy and numeracy skills among the young people currently leaving school and those who have been leaving school over recent years. That is shameful, and we in this House should focus on it.

Robert Buckland: May we find time for an urgent debate on the deteriorating situation in the Maldives, where the first round of a presidential election has been annulled and it is feared the authorities are trying to obstruct the return to power of President Nasheed, who was ousted in a coup last year and who clearly won an election that was described by international observers as free and fair?

Andrew Lansley: Yes, these are disturbing circumstances. I have not visited the Maldives, but many people in this country are familiar with it from holidays and the like,
	and I will ask my colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to update the House on this matter at oral questions, if not before.

David Rutley: Given that the 4 million self-employed in our country make a huge contribution to the economy and many have the potential to take on a first employee and bring thousands into the workplace, may we have a debate in the House on the support available for first-time employers in order to help further strengthen the entrepreneurial spirit across the country?

Andrew Lansley: I have not yet had an opportunity to announce to the House the timing of the introduction and consideration of the national insurance contributions Bill, which is relevant to the point my hon. Friend rightly raises. We know that so many of the new jobs being created are coming from small businesses, and we have perhaps the highest rate of start-up businesses. We hope many of those start-up businesses will move from being sole traders or one self-employed person to somebody who starts to employ others for the first time, and that Bill will enable us to introduce the employment allowance next April. That £2,000 off each employer’s national insurance bill for employment will seriously help in encouraging people to take that first step to becoming an employer as well as a trader.

Christopher Pincher: May we have a debate on volunteering? I am pleased to say that Tamworth has more volunteers per head of population than anywhere else in Staffordshire, and they are ably led by Rev. Alan Barrett and his wife Janet, who are soon to retire from St Editha’s church to Cumbria. That debate would allow us to discuss the value of volunteers and praise volunteers such as Alan and Janet, who make it happen.

Andrew Lansley: If I may, I will join in thanking Rev. Alan Barrett and Janet for their voluntary service and the leadership they have given to voluntary service. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on the record of volunteering in his constituency, which is reflected across the country; volunteering continues to be well supported. I hope that we will even increase it in the future, not least because of what the Prime Minister has done in promoting the National Citizen Service, in which this summer more than 30,000 young people will take part. That creates for them the prospect of a lifetime of public service and volunteering.

Julian Huppert: Two days ago, the Competition Commission made a bizarre decision that may force the sale of the much-loved and well-used Cambridge Arts Picturehouse. The Competition Commission has previously refused to act on Stagecoach’s near-complete monopoly of bus services in Cambridge or on Tesco’s dominance in the grocery market in Cambridge, but it is acting in a case where not only do the public not have concern, but many thousands have signed a petition against the Competition Commission’s decision. May we please have a debate on whether the Competition Commission should focus on real local monopolies and leave the Cambridge Arts Picturehouse alone?

Andrew Lansley: I say to my neighbour, having visited the Cambridge Arts Picturehouse, that I agree with him; it is an excellent facility in Cambridge, and I do not think for a minute that it is in the same market as some of the multiplexes outside the centre of Cambridge. The job of the Competition Commission is to identify markets and act to restrict monopolies in those markets, but I do not think we are talking about the same market here. The point my hon. Friend makes is a good one. Speaking purely personally, and not for the Government in this context, I share his view that there is no cause for the Competition Commission to seek to intervene in the ownership of the Cambridge Arts Picturehouse.

Points of Order

Huw Irranca-Davies: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In a recent speech, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs referred to the 100,000 homes being connected every week to broadband by his Government. This is a big issue for rural communities in particular. That figure conflicts directly with the more accurate one—I believe—of 10,000 per week given by his colleague the Minister with responsibility for the broadband roll-out. Is there a way of correcting this on the record, so that the House is in no way inadvertently misled? There is a tenfold difference in the figures, and so many people are struggling to access broadband at the moment.

Mr Speaker: It is extraordinarily public spirited of the hon. Gentleman to seek to help me with the arithmetic in case I was not able to manage it for myself, but I am deeply obliged to him for his point of order. What I would say to him in response is that all Members of the House, including Ministers, are responsible for the content of their answers and other statements to the House. If a Minister has made an error inadvertently—I think the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that it would be inadvertent—it is up to the Minister to correct the record. The hon. Gentleman has effectively drawn the matter to the attention of the Minister by raising it in the Chamber and it will be in the Official Report. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that that is the effect of what he has done. We will leave it there for the time being, but I know that he will be keeping an eye on the matter.

Nick Smith: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order to raise a matter affecting another Member’s constituency without giving notice? The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) has just said that the Welsh Government support may distort markets. I understand that any Welsh Government support for a race track in my constituency is absolutely above board. I suggest that the—

Mr Speaker: Order. I will help the hon. Gentleman.

Nick Smith: I suggest that the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need to pursue his point of order any further; I am extremely grateful to him for what he has said thus far. He asked me a question and the answer is that what the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire did was in order. If a Member were to raise a matter very narrowly focused on an individual constituency that was not his or her own, it would normally be thought courteous to notify that Member of the intention. If, as in this case—I hope my short-term memory is not deserting me—a Member raises a matter relating to the Welsh Government and a particular policy, he is not under any obligation to notify Members. The hon. Gentleman has required the time to go on to explain what the implications could or could not be, but in this case the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire has not erred. The hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity to air his particular point and I know that he will feel appreciative of that fact.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Immigration Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Secretary Theresa May, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Chris Grayling, Mr Secretary Pickles, Mr Secretary Hunt, Mr Secretary McLoughlin, Mr Francis Maude, Mr Oliver Letwin, Mr David Laws and Mr Mark Harper, presented a Bill to make provision about immigration law; to limit, or otherwise make provision about, access to services, facilities and employment by reference to immigration status; to make provision about marriage and civil partnership involving certain foreign nationals; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 110) with explanatory notes (Bill 110-EN).

Backbench Business

Adult Literacy and Numeracy

Caroline Dinenage: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that, with one in six adults functionally illiterate, the UK’s skills gap is preventing the country from fully realising its economic potential; understands that improved literacy rates not only have economic benefits but also have positive effects on an individual’s self-confidence, aspirations and emotional health and wellbeing; notes that literacy rates for school leavers have shown little change in spite of initiatives introduced by successive governments over recent decades; understands that the social stigma attached to illiteracy and innumeracy often prevents adults from seeking the help they need, which means that signposting illiterate and innumerate adults to Further Education Colleges is not always the most effective course of action; recognises that literacy and numeracy programmes must be made easily accessible to the most hard-to-reach functionally illiterate and innumerate adults if valued progress is to be made; and calls on the Government to renew efforts to provide imaginative, targeted and accessible support to illiterate and innumerate adults.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting us the time for this debate, which raises a matter that many Members of the House feel passionate about For everyone fortunate enough to be able to read the Order Paper without any trouble, adult literacy might not seem like a pressing issue. It is certainly easy to take the ability to read for granted without thinking about it from day to day, but for the millions of functionally illiterate adults in the UK, the inability to read will define and limit their whole lives. The loss goes far beyond missing out on the delights of the Order Paper, with everything from bus timetables to important medication leaflets remaining a challenge.
	You might think, Mr Speaker, as I did, that the issue affects only a small minority of people. You might assume that everyone around you can read fluently as you have never heard them say otherwise. In reality, a staggering one in six adults in the UK is functionally illiterate.
	I should probably take the time to remind the House what illiteracy and innumeracy mean, as they are not always the most helpful terms. There is a spectrum of ability. For example, the one in six figure is not for adults who are completely unable to read but for those who have a reading age no greater than that expected of an 11-year-old child. According to the most recently published Government survey, there have been welcome gains for many of those at upper levels, but the big worry is that those at or below entry level—that is, those with the poorest skills—appear to have increased in number, at around 15% of the adult population. That is a staggering 5 million adults. Those people might be struggling on, desperately trying to hold down a job or manage a household without the basic skills every person in the UK deserves. That could be anyone we know, from a fellow parent at our child’s school to a friend who seems always to forget their glasses. Numeracy figures are an even greater cause for concern, with almost 50% of the adult population—17 million adults—having only primary mathematics skills.
	According to research released by the OECD this week, some 16.4% of adults living in England and Northern Ireland—or about 5.8 million people—score at the lowest levels of proficiency in literacy. We must
	address that issue if we are to build a skilled economy that will drive Britain forward in the global race. The figures get worse for those aged 16 to 24, where we bump along at the bottom of the league tables below Estonia, Slovakia and Poland. In fact, England is the only country in the survey where young people today have lower basic skills than their grandparents did.
	Weak literacy and numeracy have an impact not only on the business and skills agenda but on Government policy and community life. How can someone hope to get off welfare and get a job if they cannot read or write? How can we decrease rates of recidivism when illiteracy in prisons is so high? How can we properly prepare our troops for civilian life when literacy is not valued among our armed forces?
	There are many social consequences of our collective failure to give people the help they need, but, more than that, this is a crisis for individuals. National numeracy statistics reveal that adults with poor numeracy are twice as likely to be unemployed as those who are competent, and more than twice as likely to have children while still in their teens. Those with the lowest numeracy skills are twice as likely to miss their repayments and risk losing their home. Children who struggle with numeracy are twice as likely to be excluded from school. Tackling that is the first step to raising aspiration, increasing self-confidence and helping everyone to reach their potential.
	To those who lack the ability to read and write, every door appears closed. They cannot apply for most jobs because filling in forms poses a challenge; and they lose their sense of self-worth because they lack the skills that so many of us take for granted.

Mark Williams: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I have a background in primary education. Does she agree that the best education that we as parents can offer our children is a partnership between what we do in school and what we are able to do in support of our children at home? That reveals a deep problem—the effect that illiteracy and innumeracy have, not just on community but within families. A few years ago I was lucky enough to run a scheme for parents to help them support their children in numeracy. It revealed starkly the problems that my hon. Friend is alluding to—parents’ lack of confidence to support their children.

Caroline Dinenage: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly valid point. It is often where parents have weak literacy and numeracy skills that the children are least inclined to learn. I will return to that later in my speech.
	It is worth pointing out strongly that just because someone is illiterate or innumerate, it does not mean they are stupid. Just think how sharp they have to be to get through even a day without these skills. Some people are incredibly bright but they just missed an opportunity somewhere in their life. That is the situation for one in six adults in the UK, and there is no quick fix to overcome it.
	Literacy and numeracy rates have shown little change, despite numerous initiatives by successive Governments. Between 2001 and 2011, Labour spent £9 billion on adult literacy programmes, with little improvement at the bottom end of the literacy spectrum. Illiteracy and innumeracy are not problems that can be tackled simply by a Government throwing money at them.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. I draw her attention to the progress that has been made on adult numeracy in Wales since 2001. There has been a marked improvement, and now over 80% of the adult population exceeds level 1. However, we now need to make great strides in literacy, so there will be a constant effort to drive up standards. Will she acknowledge the work that has gone on in Wales, where there has been a marked improvement in numeracy?

Caroline Dinenage: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Sadly, the OECD report relates only to England and Northern Ireland, so it does not bring into consideration the results for Wales, but it is fascinating to hear those statistics.
	There is a social stigma in being unable to read or write, which prevents individuals from seeking the help that they desperately need. Between a third and a half of adults with poor literacy and numeracy want to improve their skills, although less than 5% have actually been to a class. If we are to boost literacy and numeracy rates in the United Kingdom, we must first help learners to overcome the barriers created by social norms, and provide the help that people need right in the heart of our most vulnerable communities.
	Over the past two years, I have raised this issue at Prime Minister’s questions. I have posed numerous oral and written questions on the subject to the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Education. The responses tend, almost without exception, to direct me to the great work that is being done via formal adult education providers, such as further education colleges. But literacy and numeracy are not further education; they are basic education. If we are to make them accessible to the most hard-to-reach individuals, we must think about where, and how, we deliver them. In many cases, a formal educational environment did not work out very well for these people the first time around, so the prospect of going back as an adult is, quiet literally, terrifying.
	One exemplar of a formal education provider tackling this issue is in my Gosport constituency. The Out There project, which is funded by Hampshire Learning in collaboration with St Vincent college, provides courses for those wanting to extend their basic skills. These courses are delivered in community centres right on the doorstep of some of our most vulnerable—and valuable—residents. It is the friendly, informal environment, the free courses and the access to free child care which break down many of the frequently cited barriers to adult learning. This is what is giving individuals the confidence to go out and transform their lives for themselves. Between 2012 and 2013, the Out There project attracted 2,427 hard-to-reach learners, making it the most effective scheme of its type in Hampshire. It has even been used as a case study of excellence in the EU-REALM Platform against Poverty initiative. I am proud not only of the recognition that it has received from overseas, but that it has had such a positive impact on my constituency.
	The Government have secured continued funding for over 600,000 adults to take maths courses and 600,000 to take English courses, which are essential, but it is also essential that funding continues to flow into projects
	such as the Out There project, and I hope the Government will continue to maintain their support, both financially and politically.
	Clearly, the problems of illiteracy and innumeracy begin in schools. A crucial component of raising standards of literacy and numeracy has to be getting children to think that it matters: 25% of kids do not believe there is a link between reading and success. This failure to value literacy at a very young age has a profound impact on someone’s life chances. Once someone starts down this path, the problems become deeply embedded, and part of the experience is the problem of parents. If a parent has weak literacy or numeracy skills, a child is less likely to be imbued with an aspiration to learn. I agree with the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education—NIACE—which suggests that all schools should develop a family learning policy and all local authorities should form strategies for child and family development.
	The percentage of children who, at 16, lack basic literacy remains stubbornly high at around 19%. Of course, ensuring that our children leave school with good literacy and numeracy skills is essential and it must be a priority, but we cannot leave behind a generation of adults who have been failed by the education systems of the past. Low skill adults need a second chance and we must recognise that skills can be developed outside formal education. One way of doing this is through peer-to-peer learning.
	In my constituency, there is a truly remarkable man by the quite glorious name of Andy Paradise. He has set up a charity called Read and Grow, which combats illiteracy. Andy was shocked by the very low levels of literacy that he witnessed while he was an inmate in Dorchester prison, and he was inspired to help others less fortunate than himself. Under the ethos of “each one teach one,” Andy and his volunteers at Read and Grow use a reading tool called “Yes we can read” to share their skills in environments such as the local library discovery centre. This book is the brainchild of a brilliant author, Libby Coleman, a former head teacher in some of England’s most challenging schools. “Yes we can read” is a book which facilitates peer-to-peer learning. The idea is that anyone who can read can use the tool to teach somebody who cannot. The results are startling.
	The London-based homeless charity The Passage piloted a literacy scheme in one of its hostels using “Yes we can read” to help former rough sleepers develop their skills. One of the most amazing side effects was that staff at the hostel noticed a drop in drug and alcohol use by their homeless learners the night before they were due to have a lesson. The scheme has been so successful that Westminster council announced that it would roll out the project to all its hostels. I hope other councils will recognise the huge potential of literacy schemes to turn around the lives of those who have fallen on tough times.

Christopher Pincher: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that this is another area where local volunteers, whether from a church or a local charity, can assist local councils in helping people who are in such desperate need?

Caroline Dinenage: That is the key. The interventions that can take place in the community through volunteers—those who care passionately and those whom others feel they can more easily relate to—are extremely important.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I commend the hon. Lady for her excellent speech. Following the point the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) made, I pay tribute to the schemes run in partnership with not only the voluntary sector but the public sector, like those run by the Bridgend county borough council libraries, by Cymorth, and by Flying Start, the equivalent of Sure Start in Wales, where parents and children sit together and read. There is a role for both the voluntary and public sectors in driving the agenda forward.

Caroline Dinenage: I think that this problem can only be tackled from the grass roots up.
	The “Yes We Can Read” book is also reaching offenders in Britain’s prisons. In 2008 over two thirds of prisoners starting a custodial sentence had numeracy levels at or below level 1. The book has recently been made available in prison libraries, providing prisoners with invaluable access to this excellent resource. Peer-to-peer learning is arguably the most effective way to boost skills among prisoners. It removed the barriers created by an uncomfortable classroom and teachers whom the inmates often cannot relate to.
	Improving literacy skills is crucial to reducing reoffending, as it boosts the chances of getting a job and holding on to it when released. One of the Prison Reform Trust’s Bromley briefings describes the National Grid-led offender training and employment programme. It works with prisoners coming to the end of their sentences and provides training and a job on release. More than 2,000 prisoners have passed through the scheme, which has an average reoffending rate of just 6%.

Stewart Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and apologise for arriving late—I was serving on a Select Committee. She touches on recidivism and penal issues. Is she aware that the exemplar national payment-by-results scheme at Peterborough prison, which will hopefully be rolled out across the prison estate, depends on literacy, numeracy and life skills to reduce the level of reoffending and that it is absolutely crucial to prepare prisoners for life outside prison? Adult literacy must be at the centre of all such schemes.

Caroline Dinenage: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Although the scheme is not just about basic skills, the statistics are quite striking. It has a reoffending rate of just 6%, nearly eight times less than the UK average rate of 47%.
	Basic literacy and numeracy skills are the foundation for an adult’s employability. Young men and women who lack literacy are the least likely to be in full-time employment by the time they are 30. That failure has a dramatic impact on business. A 2011 CBI study showed that 42% of employers were unhappy with literacy among school leavers and 44% were investing in remedial classes to improve basic skills. That is in line with my experience. I have owned a small business for the past 20 years and seen for myself the gradual decline in the level of numeracy, literacy and employability one can expect as the norm from school leavers.
	I am pleased, therefore, that the Government have embedded a system whereby Jobcentre Plus advisers must scrupulously assess the English and maths needs of a relevant benefit claimant, mandating them to an initial interview with a provider where the lack of skills
	is preventing them moving into work. NIACE is concerned that without improving basic skills among benefit claimants, we will be unable to improve employability and help reduce the number of long-term benefit claimants in the UK.
	In order to achieve that, jobcentre advisers need to invest time in clients. Historically, their attempts to combat illiteracy and innumeracy have been hampered by staff choosing the quickest methods of assessing skills needs, falling for the “I’ve forgotten my glasses” line that we have already discussed, but that is not satisfactory and we must ensure that such practice does not continue.
	I am pleased that all apprenticeship providers will be required to support apprentices to achieve level 2 in English and maths. Apprenticeships are a fantastic way for people to develop their skills and get a foot on the jobs ladder. With that in mind, I welcome the progress the Government have made in tackling adult literacy and numeracy problems, but there is still more to be done.
	In closing, I reiterate that the focus must be on grass-roots learning. Community learning is a great way to promote skills development, and I welcome the Government’s support for that progress so far. I firmly believe that courses aimed at improving literacy for families and individuals who are most disadvantaged and furthest from learning are one of the best ways to tackle the absence of fundamental skills among our adult population. Adult literacy and numeracy problems cannot be solved by top-down Government policy and investment; our action must be bottom up, from the grass roots of society. If we can raise standards in schools and embed programmes that help right in the heart of our local communities, we can provide hope and opportunity to millions.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I should advise the House that the second of our debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee is extremely heavily subscribed. Therefore, in respect of this debate, it would help if each Back-Bench colleague who now speaks—I certainly do not include the hon. Lady leading the debate in this category—could confine him or herself to no more than 10 minutes. That would be most useful. We will be led by a master of the genre, on the strength of his 34-year service in the House, Mr Barry Sheerman.

Barry Sheerman: I will not report you to the ageism commission for that remark, Mr Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), who has been a strong campaigner—the best I have known—on adult literacy and numeracy. She has corresponded with me on the issue many times and I am delighted to be a co-sponsor of this debate along with Members from the other two main parties.
	I have tremendous guilt about this issue, because I chaired the Education Committee, which has had various names, for 10 years. We thought we were doing a reasonable job, but I do not think we focused as much we could have on literacy and numeracy. It is never too late, however, to look at the issue again.
	One of the most important things to recognise about this debate is that there are no easy solutions. The answer has evaded all Governments and all political parties over a very long period. During my 10 years as Committee Chair I learned that evidence-based policy is not always the total answer, but it is not a bad place to start. We should ask, “What is the evidence?” I have discussed adult literacy and numeracy with a number of people and there is a great danger that some think they know the answer intuitively. They will immediately say, “The reason is this”, and then give a simplistic explanation that is not based on anything. Only this morning I spoke to a colleague who said, “Well, the reason is the high level of migration in Britain,” but that is not true if we compare ourselves with other countries.
	The recent report on adult literacy by the OECD—it was published only this week—is convenient and substantiates everything the hon. Lady said in her very good speech. We are ranked 19th out of 22 nations on the literacy of people aged 16 to 24, and 14th out of 22 on adult literacy. That is a chilling comment on our society.
	A fundamental problem in this country is that our social and economic structure has changed dramatically over a short period. As you have said, Mr Speaker, I have been an MP for 34 years, but during my young days as a university teacher—one of the undergraduates I taught at Swansea university is sitting on the Government Benches—the world was very different, in that there were a lot of low-skilled and unskilled jobs in our economy. I remember cycling to Hampton grammar school and seeing a sign outside a factory I passed that said, “Hands wanted”. There was no mention of brains. That was the society in which we lived, with 50% or 60% of people working in manufacturing industry. It was a very different society.
	When I speak at universities today and ask people about the social and economic structure of our country, they reply that 30% or 40% of people work in manufacturing, but the real figure is 9.5%, while 30% work in education, health and local authorities—what are sometimes called public services—and 60% work in private sector services. People who work in the early-years and later-years sectors are on the minimum wage or minimum wage-plus. People who work in retail and distribution are on minimum wage-plus. We live in a very different society today. The onus is on people who are seeking employment to have high skills and high literacy and numeracy.

Robin Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Barry Sheerman: May I just finish this point? In many ways, we have responded to that challenge. We have more graduates and more talented young people coming through with the advantages of higher education. That is indisputable. However, at the same time, we have failed to deliver basic education to a significant percentage of the population. Those people are very unlikely ever to get anything other than the most menial work on the lowest wages.

Robin Walker: I wanted to intervene not to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but to strengthen his argument. He said that roughly 9% of people work in manufacturing industry. I am sure that he would recognise that the
	nature of that industry has changed enormously. The skills that are required for people to enter that industry are probably greater than they have ever been in the past 100 years. Even in that industry, it is not just hands that are wanted, but brains. The modern manufacturing world wants people who are literate and numerate, and who can work with computers.

Barry Sheerman: That is absolutely right. A lot of manufacturing is coming back to this country because things can be manufactured anywhere in the world with highly sophisticated equipment, such as 3D printers, and only a small number of highly skilled people.
	We have the problem that about 25% of the young people coming out of our schools have only one bare GCSE. Something is going dramatically wrong that we have not been able to put right. We must do something about it. I want to make a strong case for looking at the evidence. We need more research into why that is happening.
	When I became the Chair of the Select Committee, I had all sorts of assumptions about which parts of our country were underperforming educationally, but that was absolute prejudice. The evidence shows that the coastal parts of the country are among the lowest performing areas. People on the street would say that the north-west performs very badly, but that is not true. It is coastal areas and the east of England, which contains Cambridge university and the Open university, that are the lowest performing areas.
	We must look at the facts. Where is the underachievement? What is it in the structure of certain communities that means that people do not value education, do not stimulate their children to be interested in education and do not support them in the school process? We know that the early years are essential. It is important for children at a very young age to sit on somebody’s lap and have those little cloth books read to them. We must get children into reading very early on. We know that that works.
	There are many fashions and fads. If there is one thing that we must not do in this debate, it is to be party political. We must not get carried away by enthusiasms. The research on teaching children to read shows that if teachers are trained to use a system and that system is used, it works. It is fashionable to say that only synthetic phonics works. We know that that is not true. If we have a system and train people to use it, we will get good results.
	We must carry out research and have systems in place, but we must also have people who inspire us. Mr Speaker, you know that I am obsessed with the English poet, John Clare. When he lived, he had only 100 poems in print. We have since discovered a lost archive of 1,000 poems. He was one of our greatest poets on the environment. He left school at 12, the peasant son of a thresher and a farm labourer. All his life, the only jobs that he got were through standing in the village and being hired. He was only 5 feet tall, so he did not get much work. However, he learned to read at the parish school and was liberated to be an amazing poet. He lived a full life in so many ways.
	Only this weekend, I was reading Caitlin Moran in The Times. I am an unashamed devotee of Caitlin Moran—in fact, I got some strange comments when I was in Spain with all our great-grandchildren and I was
	reading “How to Be a Woman” by the side of the pool. I tweeted that I was getting some strange comments, and Caitlin Moran immediately tweeted back:
	“You carry on being righteous, dude”,
	which I thought was rather good. Caitlin Moran is a young woman from a family of seven who lived in social housing, and there were a lot of barriers to her succeeding, but she learned to read and could not stop reading. What a fantastic talent she is. From John Clare 200 years ago to Caitlin Moran today; that is how to get kids to be liberated and become full citizens.
	When I go into schools and universities I talk about the importance of education and of liberating talent, and I call it “the spark”. The spark is in all of us, if only we can reach it. If a child does not have early stimulation and the support of a network, it is quite difficult for them to find that spark later in life, liberate it and let it blossom. The earlier the better, but it can still be done later on. Further education colleges are good at parts of that and provide basic skills, but there are other ways. Mentors are crucial, and I say to the Minister that they are cheap. I find that business people, professionals and university teachers want to give back, and they will be mentors.
	When I talk to university and other students, I say that if they liberate themselves, they will liberate themselves for a good life. The best debate we can have with young people is by telling them that it is difficult to have a good life on the minimum wage. That is true, and we have to liberate young people so that they are not only talented and great providers in our economy but great citizens. We can do that only by tackling the problem as early as we can, and let us do it on a cross-party basis.

Nigel Evans: It is a delight for me to make my first speech in the Chamber for three years on this subject. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) for giving me the opportunity to do so by securing the debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) for remarking that he was my lecturer at Swansea university—he has a lot to be blamed for in many ways. I always said that he taught me all I know about politics, and he reminds me that I came into Swansea university as a little Tory and came out a bigger Tory. That is a fact.
	This is a good debate. We need to do more about literacy and numeracy, and I was delighted to hear what the Leader of the House said about it in business questions. The hon. Member for Huddersfield is absolutely right that it is not a party political matter. It has dogged this country for decades under different Governments, and we have to look harder for the solution. It is about making people better not simply so that they can get better jobs but so that they can fulfil their ambitions and lead better lives for themselves. It is a quality of life thing, and that is vital. Millions of people are affected in this country alone. The OECD report has been mentioned, and it is shocking that we are so low down the table—almost at the bottom. All Members should hang their heads in shame that that is the case, and we need to do more.
	Dyslexia has not yet been mentioned. We need to do a lot more to understand people who suffer from it—they are not stupid people, but they need better help and earlier diagnosis. If that does not happen early on, we can find that they lack interest in what is going on in school because they feel that they are not up to it, which is not the case. Some 10% of people in this country suffer from dyslexia, and apparently 4% severely so, so we need to do a lot more.
	We have heard about the shocking number of people who are innumerate and illiterate, and the same goes for people in prison. There are 84,000 people in prison at the moment, and we need to do a lot more for them to ensure that they get the education they need while they are in prison.
	The hon. Member for Gosport mentioned libraries in prisons and the good they do. When local authorities up and down the country are looking for savings, it is shocking that one of the first and easiest targets they choose are libraries. “Let’s close the library”—well no; let us ensure that the libraries stay open, encourage more people into them, and use them for adult education classes so that people can become more literate and see the wealth of books available. That is one of the reasons why people should want to learn to read, write and be numerate.
	About 3 million pupils who leave school after GCSEs are ill-equipped for life, and as I said, about 40,000 of people in prison are illiterate, and 55,000 are innumerate. We must do more to make education in schools more relevant to pupils so that they see why they need to read and write. Nothing surprises me more than when I go into a pub and see youngsters playing darts. They are able to add up what they have just scored and deduct it from, I think, 360. I am there with chalk and a board trying to do that, but they do it in their heads. They are so much better at it because it is relevant to them and that is why they are able to do it. On literacy it is the same with texting, and people substitute certain words for letters and so on. That may be okay, but life is not Twitter and we do not lead our lives in 140 characters. It is much richer than that, and we must ensure that people get the full wealth of knowledge and culture that is denied to them if they are not able to read and write.
	I do not believe that teachers want demotivated classes with youngsters who lack ambition or hope, and where the only thing they look forward to is the “X Factor” on television. There are 25 letters in the alphabet apart from X, and if we combine them there is more wealth out there than there is on “X Factor”.
	I was on the Council of Europe for five years, and nothing shamed me more than the fact that there were people from other countries who seemed to speak English better than we do. They came from Denmark, Sweden—a number of countries—and their ability to speak English as well as their own language, and probably Italian, Spanish and French while they are at it, was amazing. In this country, however, we have statistics showing that people cannot even speak our country’s national language. We must do more.
	The hon. Lady mentioned stigma, and we must stop all that. People have not failed; we have failed them because they are unable to read and write. It is not their stigma but ours, and we—rather than those people—should have that stigma. We must correct that and give people opportunities to be able to read and write. Lifelong
	learning is important because education does not finish when people are 18 or 19, or when they leave school or university. It goes on for ever, and we must make opportunities for people to have lifelong learning.
	The number of immigrants who have come to the country over the years is phenomenal and many simply do not have the skills to speak English. That should be a priority for us. I know we say that people should not come to the country and settle down unless they are able to speak English, but we must recognise that millions of people have come in who cannot do that. What are we going to do about that? Let us not deny to immigrants who have settled in this country, rightfully and legally, the opportunity to play a full role. Let us do more for immigrants who have settled in the country but who are not able to speak English.
	When schools finish and the doors and gates are locked at night, it is a crying shame that they are not thrown open for all the people who want to do night classes. Community centres have been mentioned, but lots of schools up and down the country are closed and should not be. The lights should be on at 7 o’clock in the evening so that people can go there, and there are lots of resources, including teachers who would be willing to be mentors and teach those who want to read and write.
	If we want people to have fuller lives, and if we want people to be better citizens and have better opportunities for employment, we must ensure they can read, write and be numerate. We must work harder. We cannot let people down as we have for decades.

David Rutley: My hon. Friend, as well as other hon. Members today, makes a powerful speech. Given the importance of the internet and the digital economy in helping people to access information and to learn, does he agree that it is vital that IT skills are linked to helping people to learn literacy and numeracy skills, including older people who have difficulty accessing public services? Does he recognise the important role that organisations such as Age UK play in that important task?

Nigel Evans: I agree with my hon. Friend—that is exactly what should happen. When I am learning French or Russian, I use the internet. There is an amazing amount of stuff in different languages to read on the internet. It is the same for those who want to learn English, but they need the IT skills to do that. Those things can be combined—lifelong learning clearly involves IT.

Barry Sheerman: On that point, is the hon. Gentleman aware of an interesting innovation between Cambridge and Hertfordshire universities? They are working together on a new system that evaluates people’s competences. They begin with competences to start businesses. If people get through the evaluation, the universities give them courses to make them fit to do so. That is the beginning of an interesting process.

Nigel Evans: I was not aware of that innovation, but the hon. Gentleman shows us the potential that is out there, which we must use to its fullest. We cannot allow millions of people in this country not to live the fullest life they possibly can. They need to be given extra support. All hon. Members recognise that we have let a lot of people down for decades. They will say fairly well
	the same thing as I have said in the debate—that we need to do a lot more—but when will we start? If not today, when?

Julie Elliott: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) on securing this important debate. She has worked tirelessly and done a huge amount on adult literacy. As colleagues have said, this is not a party political issue—it affects all our constituencies and all who live in our country. I have always passionately believed that education is a lifelong journey and not one that stops at A-level, university or apprenticeship level. Improving standards of adult literacy and numeracy is fundamental both to our economy and to the well-being of every man and woman who struggles with those crucial skills.
	I should like to talk about an under-reported but hugely important project helping and training thousands of people at all levels to improve their skills through learning. Unionlearn, in collaboration with the TUC, trains thousands of union learning reps and has helped hundreds of thousands to train and learn through their union every year. Before entering the House, I had the opportunity to see first hand the difference the scheme makes to real people in the real workplace, and the brilliant results.

Brian Binley: I apologise for being late, Mr Speaker.
	When I was a relatively young man, I took great advantage of, and was very well served by, the Workers Education Association. I was a secondary modern schoolboy who left at 15, and the WEA had the important effect of broadening my horizons. Will the hon. Lady help us by telling us whether that organisation is still doing that good work? If so, are we helping it as we should?

Julie Elliott: The WEA is very active, and certainly in my area. It often uses the skills of people who have retired from full-time careers in education—they do a little bit of work here and there to help to train people. It is an active but undervalued organisation.
	Union learning dates back to the 19th century, with the establishment of colleges for working people. More recently, the union learning fund, set up in 1998, distributed £150 million towards training and education, which helped to recruit many union learning reps and expand the number of people in training and education. The fund, which has supported more than 50 unions in more than 700 workplaces, has several key goals: to embed learning and skills so that they become a core strategic objective of all unions; to help unions form active partnerships with employers, which I will mention later; and to raise demand for learning among the low skilled and other disadvantaged groups. Colleagues have mentioned people using their peers to access learning. When people are vulnerable and find themselves in adult life without the ability to read and write properly, peer groups are a crucial tool to making that first step into learning.
	Unionlearn exists because of a fierce belief that access to learning is fundamental to every person’s life chances, and that such opportunities should be available to everyone—the entire work force—regardless of background. The access to opportunity, and the ability
	to reach people who may not have been reached by others, makes Unionlearn and union-led education so crucial to the well-being of hundreds of thousands of people.
	Approximately 20% of the adult population cannot read to a level that allows them to do their job effectively or gain a promotion, and more than 5 million lack a good GCSE or equivalent in English. In my experience, I have seen examples of incredibly gifted people who cannot read and write much more than their own name, but who have tremendous other skills that have enabled them to get through a workplace and end up at a senior level. One of the most alarming and surprising things I learned when I was involved with Unionlearn was that some incredibly senior managers could do little more than write their own names. Obviously, they have huge skills to have the ability to work around that and get to that point.
	Substandard reading skills are strongly linked to poor writing skills, so many adults are prevented from helping their children with homework, which exacerbates the problem, because it is extended to the next generation. As I have said, some people are barred from career advancement because they are unable to fill out job applications. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) mentioned online learning and the internet. People need a basic understanding of English and writing to access the help available.
	A Government-backed study found that nearly 50% of working-age adults in England struggle with maths. Innumeracy does not just affect people’s ability in the workplace, but follows them everywhere, from looking at price comparison websites to reading bus timetables. Alex Smiles Ltd is a great example of union-led training in my constituency of Sunderland Central. The firm employs more than 100 people. Its core activity is the gathering, processing and recycling of waste materials produced by the construction and manufacturing industries. It is a non-unionised workplace, and represents an increasing number of employers that Unionlearn and the TUC regularly work with through partnership working initiatives.
	More than 16% of the Alex Smiles Ltd workforce have completed a numeracy qualification and 15% completed a literacy qualification at either level 1 or 2. Becky Smiles, the training and development manager at Alex Smiles, has said of Unionlearn:
	“Every interaction has been positive and business-led, driven by making us a better, higher-performing workplace in every respect. The learning activity is making inroads to upskilling our people and addressing front-line business goals that have bottom-line benefits, too.”
	Adult literacy and numeracy skills are fundamental to our economy, and to the life chances and well-being of every individual in the country. Unionlearn and other union-led projects give all people the chance to improve their skills, and I am delighted to have had the opportunity to sing their praises and raise awareness of that excellent scheme.

Justin Tomlinson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), who covered all the great work
	that Unionlearn has done. I have asked to see that first hand in my constituency, but I have not yet had a reply to my request.
	It is also a pleasure to follow excellent and thoughtful speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) and the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). I also wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), who has done some exceptional work in this area. Indeed, I was surprised by her calm, measured and constructive manner, when I would have struggled to hold back my anger at the fact that one in six adults is financially illiterate. The OECD figures are a disgrace, and we have robbed people of opportunity. We all have drivers of our politics—the issues that motivate us to do what we do—and this is one of my core drivers.
	I went to a school that was bottom of the league tables and many of my friends were robbed of opportunities in life. As Members of Parliament we see from our casework people in real distress, arguably through no fault of their own but because they are simply not equipped to deal with the challenges that life throws up. My wife volunteered for two years at a job club and found people were not equipped to get jobs to give them opportunities in life.

Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that one area in which numeracy has an incredible impact on people’s lives is that of payday loans at 1,400% from Wonga and various other companies? When people do not have the faintest idea what that means, they get into huge financial difficulties which cause great misery. If they were numerate, they would understand exactly why they should not take out loans at those exorbitant rates.

Justin Tomlinson: That is a brilliant intervention with fortune-telling skills, as that is exactly what I was about to say. Numeracy is not just about applying for jobs—it is about confidence, about being a savvy consumer and about dealing with things such as payday lending. We have had several debates on this and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) will also touch on that issue—although to be fair, most Treasury Ministers would struggle to calculate the APR on payday lending. We live in a complex world with marketing messages, and my hon. Friend and I are working on a paper at the moment about how consumers are not empowered. The markets are in control because consumers are not equipped to make the right decisions.
	I want to talk about three areas in which we have opportunities to help people—financial education, work in schools and using libraries as hubs. On financial education, we have had an exceptionally successful cross-party campaign—235 MPs signed up—and I am delighted that as of September 2014 it will be a core part of the national curriculum. The key driver behind the campaign was the fact that 91% of people who get into financial difficulties say, “If only I had known better.” My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport pointed out that 50% of adults struggle with even primary maths skills, so it is no wonder that people get into financial difficulty. The campaign focused on four strands—schools, further education, higher education and the crucial vulnerable group, work on which is led by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). That group is crucial because although we are bringing in the changes in schools, further education and higher education,
	some people will still slip through the net. The report will be published in the next couple of weeks and will contain important points for the Government to take up, so that we can ensure that the most vulnerable people are not missed out.
	I am a big fan of the school reforms, which will drive up standards and include making grammar and spelling important in all exams; making mental arithmetic more important in primary schools; restricting the use of calculators; and upgrading maths in the curriculum. I was a maths fan in school, but I was in the minority, even though maths is incredibly important. The pupil premium is providing schools with opportunities to target resources to those most in need.
	I had an inspiring visit to Seven Fields school in my constituency. As I have mentioned in previous debates, I had the honour of the Minister for Schools coming to visit after I had set out just how good the school is. To put it in context, it is in one of the top 5% most deprived areas and it was formerly a failing school. To give credit to the previous Government, money was provided to rebuild the school, which was the beginning of the process, but the fundamental changes came from the school reforms, which gave its inspirational head teacher the ability to make a real difference. Some 70% of the children are on the pupil premium and that money has been used—now that the class sizes have been almost halved to 17—to work with the community to get volunteers to come in and read one on one with the children. That has been done by providing a free Sunday roast on Wednesdays to the Penhill luncheon club, who work one on one with the children on reading and numeracy. It makes a huge difference.
	Lately resources have been diverted to the nursery because, as the head teacher told the Minister for Schools and me, some of the children coming through have simply been abandoned in front of the television. Not only can they not walk, they have not even reached the first stages of crawling. They literally have to start again. When the children arrive at the school, they are 18 months behind the national average, but by the time they finish, they have caught up—giving those children opportunity.
	Huge effort is put into selecting the best, most ambitious teachers, who want to go the extra mile to make a difference. We all know from our own time in schools how teachers who make the extra effort can make a huge difference. The school also provides a constructive and positive environment, including children taking their shoes off and treating it like their own homes. They also have opportunities to make visits beyond school to do things that they would not otherwise have the chance to do.
	The head teacher still has a wish list of things that would make a difference. She feels that school holidays undo the great work that is done. Some of the children are upset that they will not be able to come into school. Before teachers start thinking that I am advocating a 52-week term, I should say that the idea is to open up the schools in holidays for summer camps on sport, literacy or numeracy, or for the Scouts and other volunteer organisations to use. PFI schools often have expensive charges for outside groups, which removes the opportunity for constructive work. The head teacher thinks that some of the children benefit from the almost family environment in the school, and should perhaps be held back beyond primary school age—perhaps up to 14 or when they are in a position to go to the local FE college
	or start an apprenticeship—because they need that sort of environment, perhaps because of their family background. As they go off to the traditional secondary schools, the influences and temptations away from the right path prove too great without family support—and the school can be a substitute for that.
	The final, and perhaps contentious, item is the need for performance-related pay for teachers. My father was a teacher, as were my grandmother and grandfather, and many of my friends are teachers. We need to provide incentives for the very best teachers who make a real difference to people. I do not see why they should not be rewarded financially, because in any other profession they would be.

Toby Perkins: I wish to explore how the hon. Gentleman thinks that would work in practice. My son is doing a GCSE in business studies with two different teachers. If one is good and one is bad, how would we work out who got the pay rise and who got the sack?

Justin Tomlinson: That is a good point, and the key is that I would not do that, because I am a politician and what do I know? It would be the head teachers who decided. We should entrust them to run schools like any other organisation. The head teacher at this school was waxing lyrical about the inspirational teachers with extra enthusiasm and energy, and she should have absolute freedom to ensure that she has the very best teachers for those children from very challenging backgrounds who do not have the luxury of private education and who rely on this single chance in life.
	The parents also need to be engaged. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport mentioned the role of parents. The school I am talking about has parental contracts. If parents want their child to go to the school, they have to play their part and engage with the school, to ensure that it is not only in school hours that the children benefit from the opportunities provided
	I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on libraries, and I think libraries have a big role to play in adult literacy, which might simply be by opening up the doors to volunteer groups in the evenings and when the library is closed. The summer reading challenge has made a huge difference in getting children to read six books over the summer, when previously they might not have read a single book—look at the number of adults who have not read a book in the last 12 months. Perhaps job centres could utilise the libraries to provide opportunities, even for those who need to start from scratch. I have advocated in other debates that we should open up school sports facilities for free to organisations that provide constructive, energetic activities for young people, and a similar principle could be applied to libraries.
	The situation is a disgrace. We have to show urgency in our attempts to make a difference. People have one chance in life and, as all hon. Members will make clear, they are being robbed of it. That is a desperately poor situation.

Kelvin Hopkins: First, I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and to other hon. Members, for arriving late. I was in a Select Committee interviewing the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary so I could
	not be here earlier, but I wanted to speak in the debate and I am glad to have the opportunity to do so. I will not speak for too long, because others wish to speak.
	I am particularly concerned about numeracy. I used to teach economics and statistics and am familiar with numeracy problems. Lord Moser, who is a splendid member of the other place, wrote a report some 15 years ago that I have talked about in the Chamber many times. He found that more than 50% of the population were innumerate. He illustrated that by saying that 50% of the population did not understand what 50% means. When I write articles for newspapers I do not just write 10% but “one in 10”, to make sure that people get the message, because not everyone understands percentages.
	I have encountered many adults with numeracy problems. When I taught economics, the first question I would ask my students was: what is the difference between 1 million and 1 billion? Many of them did not know, so I said that a million is not very much and a billion is quite a lot. I used to ask, “How many houses can be bought for £1 million and how many houses can be bought for £1 billion?” In Luton, one might be able to buy five for £1 million and 5,000 for £1 billion.

Barry Sheerman: Was my hon. Friend teaching in the US or the UK? The answer would be different if he taught in the US.

Kelvin Hopkins: I was teaching in Britain, where of course 1,000 million makes 1 billion—let us get that straight from the beginning.
	I met Lord Moser recently at a reception in the House of Lords. He is an elderly man now, but he still despairs of the problem of adult innumeracy. Adults are bamboozled by politicians because we throw numbers about all the time—all parties do it. A Front Bench spokesperson can say, “We are going to spend £20 million extra on the national health service.” Twenty million pounds is absolutely nothing in the scheme of things in public expenditure, but £20 billion is a significant amount. Politicians constantly bamboozle the electorate, knowing that they can be not very sophisticated at handling such numbers.
	I used to teach elementary statistics to A-level students studying sociology. I used to do simple sums with square numbers to find the square root. For example, the square root of 100 is 10—that is quite easy. When one of my students said that nine times nine was 89 and 10 times 10 was 110, I realised there was a problem. I have another anecdote. The daughter of a good friend of mine wanted to be a nurse. She had various O-levels, so I said, “Why can’t you be a nurse?” She said, “I can’t pass O-level maths.” I asked her why not. She said that she could not do multiplication because she had never been taught it—imagine that.
	We have to go back to a philosophy of education and teaching that was utterly misguided. My wife and my brother are both primary school teachers. In the 1960s, 1970s and, to a certain extent, the 1980s, rote learning of tables was regarded as anathema—absolutely forbidden. Complete and total nonsense. Of course, I angered many of my good friends on the left who thought I was some sort of authoritarian, because I thought that learning tables was a good idea so that people knew that 12 times 12 was 144—elementary stuff.
	When I first entered the House in 1997, I raised this issue with the then Schools Minister, Stephen Byers. I said that we had to look at teaching methods and the interface between teachers and pupils, particularly in primary schools so that pupils learn numeracy properly at the beginning. He said, “Oh no, that would be too prescriptive.” Sometimes we have to be prescriptive. We have to say that some things work and some things do not work. Let us look at other countries where numeracy is better.
	The international comparison table published in The Independent yesterday showed that we are slipping down the table, and that 16 to 24-year-olds are actually worse than the previous generation. We are now quite low down the table, which is very worrying. If we are to produce the engineers and the skills we need for the future, we have to address numeracy problems. Governments have to look at what works and try to ensure that that is what is applied in schools. It is not enough to reorganise institutions—creating academies and free schools and so on. We have to look at what is happening in the classroom at every state school, because we have a problem.

Brian Binley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I will refer to as my hon. Friend, because he is a friend. I am delighted that he is speaking so passionately from such an informed background—it is very helpful. I wonder whether we have enough of a joined-up approach to adult illiteracy and innumeracy. I also wonder whether we use our libraries enough, and whether the Minister ought to be thinking about using such facilities and giving them a new lease of life.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention.
	We should try to have one-to-one teaching for adults with numeracy problems. I have done some coaching and have found that it is often the simple things that fox people. Not everybody is gifted at mathematics, but sometimes people are puzzled because they do not realise that a division sum can be expressed in different ways: by having one number over another, or by having two dots on either side of a line. People get confused, but it all means the same thing. How many times does 10 go into 100? Whichever way we write it down, it will always be 10. We have to have one-to-one tuition. During my coaching and teaching I have seen the light that appears in people’s eyes when they understand something that has mystified them all their lives.
	We have to look at what happens in the classroom between the teacher and the pupil. We have to ensure that teachers in primary schools are comfortable with mathematics, can handle numbers and feel at ease with them. A deeply worrying statistic from 40 or 50 years ago was that 60% of primary school teachers had failed O-level maths. I am not saying that O-level maths is the acme of success, but it showed that they were uncomfortable with the subject. If teachers are uncomfortable with the subject, having them introduce children to mathematics is not a sensible way to proceed.
	It is clear from the statistics published yesterday, and from the Moser report some time ago, that we still have a problem. We are slipping down the league table and Lord Moser still has concerns. I hope that the Government, whoever is in office, address this problem by looking at
	teaching methods and finding out what works. We need to ensure that the next generation of children do not become innumerate like so many adults today.

Robin Walker: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) on securing this important debate.
	I have found myself heartily in agreement with every Member who has spoken. What the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said about basic standards in education chimes with the e-mails I receive from constituents and the feedback I hear frequently from businesses in my constituency. As a member of the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, this is a matter of concern. It is raised with me by businesses in Worcester on a regular basis. On a national level, the CBI is concerned about the literacy and numeracy of school leavers, and how that feeds through to the challenge of Britain competing in the 21st century. We also face the specific challenge of improving the English language skills of first generation immigrants and ensuring that women, particularly those at risk of isolation, are able to access adult education—an important point we should not overlook.
	I recently took part in an excellent inquiry run by the all-party group on literacy into how business, schools and government can work more closely together to improve reading and communication skills, and basic business literacy for young people. We have heard about best practice and I commend the report to colleagues, but we clearly need to go further if we want to eradicate the problems of illiteracy and innumeracy among the adult population.
	As the motion suggests, low adult numeracy and literacy is a substantial cost to our country in opportunities missed and earnings limited. Helping people to reach a higher level of literacy, numeracy and work literacy will help to restore a culture where work always pays and where opportunity is open to all.
	According to the National Numeracy campaign, 17 million adults are at only “entry level” in numeracy and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport said, 5 million are at the same level in literacy, which means that they reach only the standard expected of a primary school leaver. After over a decade in which education spending rose sharply, that is a shocking statistic. The latest CBI employment trends survey showed that 35% of employers were dissatisfied with levels of literacy among school leavers—higher than it was in 2003, at the beginning of that period of investment.
	This week’s report from the OECD should act as a wake-up call to anyone who is complacent about this issue. In particular, the worrying figures for 16 to 24-year-olds suggest that the problem has been getting worse in this country rather than better over the last decade and that the UK is falling further behind its competitors. For England to come 21st out of 24 industrialised countries for adult numeracy when we are the greatest financial centre of the lot is something that really should concern every Member.
	Britain has at times been parodied as a nation of shopkeepers, and the retail trade is still one of the most significant employers in the UK economy. Our Select Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the
	future of retail, so we have heard a great deal of evidence about the changing skill-set required by the industry, but basic numeracy and literacy are absolutely non-negotiable.
	KPMG research shows that adults with at least basic numeracy—level 1 or above—earn on average 26% more than adults with skills below that level. When controlling for education level, social class and type of school attended, there is still a 10% earnings premium for basic numeracy. These figures show how, if people were earning more money, we could reduce the deficit, help to raise tax revenue and help pay for public services. The research also showed that over two thirds of prisoners at the start of their custodial sentences had numeracy levels below level 1.
	According to the National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy, adults with poor numeracy are two and a half times more likely to report having a long-standing illness or disability and are roughly twice as likely to report several symptoms of depression. Adults with poor numeracy are more than twice as likely to have had their first child while still in their teens. Dealing with low levels of numeracy can therefore help to reduce welfare dependency, crime and mental health costs.
	So what can we do about it? We need to empower employers to work more closely with target groups in the adult population, as well as with school-age children to show the relevance of numeracy and literacy skills in the workplace and the opportunities they can bring. Local economic partnerships can play a key role in that, bringing the private sector together with some of the public sector organisations involved.
	The Government are rightly enthusiastic, after the great campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), about putting financial education into the national curriculum—a key step in making numeracy relevant to many people who want a practical rather than an academic understanding of its importance. It will also equip people better to deal with the sort of problems people face with payday loans, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans).
	We need to reject the lazy assumption that some people are just not mathematically minded and we need to target better support to those who suffer from confusion about numbers, just as we have over the years to sufferers of dyslexia in the literacy space. We need to make sure that numeracy is made relevant and literacy exciting—not just in schools, but at every level of education and skills. Campaigns such as the Reading Champions campaign, bringing sports personalities into primary schools to talk about the value of reading, do great work on this already, but there is much more scope for using role models at every level of the adult population to promote literacy and numeracy alike. We need to keep a vigorous focus on raising standards in education, which the current Secretary of State has done a lot to foster, while recognising that the school system alone can never deliver the solution for everyone.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) pointed out earlier, we need to support parents who want to read and do maths with their children but who may lack the confidence to do so or feel there is a stigma in admitting they need help. As the motion mentioned, not all the people we need to reach
	are going to access help through the further education sector, which means we need to make sure that community libraries, Sure Start centres and other community facilities play their part in providing help. I greatly agreed with the point made earlier about getting schools to do more in the evenings with parents and to reach out and provide help on these problems.
	As National Numeracy has suggested, we need to achieve a broad cultural shift whereby everyone realises that, with effort and support, they can improve their numeracy. We must avoid creating greater stigma and focus instead on raising aspirations and seeking pathways to help.
	We need to focus particularly on helping the most vulnerable, supporting innovative approaches in probation and through homelessness charities via the troubled families initiatives and early intervention services in order to get help to those who need it most. We also need to work on improving the transition to adulthood, as vulnerable people often find a sharp drop-off in the level of attention and support they receive on reaching adult age.
	All those things are challenging to achieve, but need to be delivered through a combination of innovation, Government activity and private and voluntary sector good will. I shall not detain the House further, as demand to contribute to the debate is high. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport on securing this debate. The motion is right to highlight the importance of this issue for our country; by addressing it, we will create greater opportunity for all.

Christopher Pincher: I will obey Mr Speaker’s admonition to be brief, not least because I do not think I could hope to match the expertise already shown by other hon. Members.
	I should like to say a few words about my own constituency experience, but let me first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) on securing this debate and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who made a very thoughtful speech. I agree with him that this issue should not be party political. I agree with him that Governments of every shade have failed to get to grips with dealing with adult education, illiteracy and innumeracy. I hope he will agree with me that the failures of the past must not be the yardstick for the future. When my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) asks, “When do we deal with this issue?”, I hope we will all say “Now” and I hope the Minister will say “Now”, too, when he replies shortly to the debate.
	I am pleased to say that unemployment is falling in my constituency and is now lower than at any time since before the recession. The biggest barrier to entry to employment for young people in my constituency, however, is illiteracy and innumeracy. When I talk to local employers—small and medium-sized enterprises such as light engineering firms and chemicals or plastics firms—they tell me “Yes, we can find new 40 and 50-year-olds to replace the people who retire, but we do not have younger people with the right level of numeracy or literacy to replace our employees.” That presents
	SMEs in my constituency, and in the country, with a ticking time-bomb, as they will struggle to find the right people with the right skills to replace their employees. Unless we are able to educate young adults and the kids at school now, we will not succeed in the global race about which the Prime Minister and the Chancellor rightly talk.
	We also face a challenge with communication. We all deal every day with constituents who raise problems with us via e-mail or letter. All too many of my constituents who write or e-mail me are older people. My office gets lots of phone calls from younger people with housing, immigration or tax issues, but when my office says, “Can you send us an e-mail or write to us to provide more detail so that we can fully understand your problem”, all too many respond by saying, “Actually, we would rather not e-mail and rather not write because we are not comfortable about doing that.” How can we hope to help our constituents when they cannot communicate effectively with us about their problems and concerns?

Brian Binley: I believe that our libraries can offer much more training than they are at present. I urge the Minister to look at the connection between education and libraries, particularly with regard to technology. I am one of the people who are bemused by it. It is right to point out that this is a generational issue, but I think we could do much more in our localities through our libraries if only there were more of a joined-up approach to the problem.

Christopher Pincher: Mystic Binley demonstrates once again his crystal-ball-gazing skills, as I was just about to come on to the issue of libraries. The local library in my constituency, provided by Staffordshire county council, offers free books to help adult readers. A local volunteer organisation, DIGIT—the dyslexia information group in Tamworth—provides support to those adult learners by providing them with reading buddies. DIGIT does even more by providing help for Tamworth’s young children falling within the scope of the dyslexia spectrum to improve their reading, writing and arithmetic skills. Academisation has also helped. My local head teachers now have more scope to decide what to teach, how to teach it and whom to employ. GCSE results at the Rawlett School, for instance, have improved significantly this year. However, more still desperately needs to be done.
	We have the adult and community learning fund—to which I am sure the Minister will refer—the skills for life fund and the traineeship programme, all of them underpinned by Government and supported by money so that young adults can be helped to learn, but I must ask the Minister to consider two other issues. The first is the teaching and knowledge of dyslexia in our schools, which is at best uneven. Tamworth has some good dyslexia teaching schools, such as Wilnecote high school, but others are less good. That is because there are not enough teachers with the right skills, and not enough head teachers who know enough about the scope of the dyslexia spectrum to deal with young people who suffer from the condition. We also need to ensure that there is as much dyslexia teaching in primary schools as in secondary schools, so that dyslexia can be recognised and dealt with as early as possible.
	The second issue, which I hope the Minister will consider during his discussions with his colleagues in the Department for Education, is the need for more
	vertical integration between primary and secondary schools. All too many students in my constituency go to secondary school at the age of 11 with a reading age of seven. They are doomed to failure at GCSE the moment they walk through the door of their secondary school. We need secondary schools to know as early as possible which kids face challenges so that they can help the primary schools to help those children, and the children can go to secondary school with a higher reading age and improve their chances of obtaining better GCSEs. We must ensure that children do not walk into a cliff face at the age of 11 because their secondary schools did not know who they were.
	I think that if we do what so many Members today have suggested we do—and if the Minister at least takes on board the two points that I have raised—we shall be able to improve literacy and numeracy, and improve the life chances of so many of our constituents who, for so long, have been disregarded and have not been helped.

Toby Perkins: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) on securing an excellent debate about an issue on which she has fought and campaigned for some time. Her speech reflected her expertise and passion. I also congratulate the other Members who have contributed to this valuable and serious discussion about an issue that continues to be significant.
	The warnings issued by the OECD in its report make it clear that Britain faces a considerable challenge in aiming to raise the literacy and numeracy levels of, in particular, the most deprived people in the country. The report is unequivocal in identifying the need for England and Northern Ireland to address social inequalities, especially among the young, as a key reason for the fact that we are falling behind in that regard. It emphasises that although we in Britain make good use of our highly skilled talent pool, there is a stronger association between higher levels of literacy and good social outcomes here than in most other countries.
	Although the motion provides some guidance in regard to the aspects that we should be considering, it is somewhat limited, in that it proposes an academic solution to what is largely a social problem. I entirely support its call for literacy and numeracy programmes to be made more accessible to the people who are hardest to reach, and its call for imaginative support for illiterate adults, but, to a degree, it seeks to address the symptoms rather than the causes of the current problem.
	The hon. Member for Gosport provided us with an impressive list of statistics relating to the social and economic costs of illiteracy and the extent to which it disadvantages Britain in the global race. She also suggested giving jobcentres a mandatory role in dealing with illiteracy and innumeracy. I believe that, if jobcentres are to play such a role, they will need to change their relationship with the people whom they see as customers. Many people come to see me after visiting jobcentres, and it is clear to me that the current relationship is not likely to enable them to feel positive about jobcentres’ sending them in the direction of literacy. However, the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education has said that there is a potential role for jobcentres, and I think that the idea could be considered if the culture within them were to change.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) made an excellent speech. His passion for Caitlin Moran was clear for all to see, and I am sure that it will gratify her. He reflected, importantly, on the changing face of our economy, and on the fact that our economic and educational needs have, in some respects, become aligned with each other. As our economic needs change, it is vital for our educational needs to change as well. He made another important point about the huge potential for business people to serve as mentors in our schools. The Labour party is considering that proposal in detail. Business people have been serving as school governors in Labour-controlled Waltham Forest, and I should like to see more of them reflecting the needs of business in our education establishments.
	The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) made such a brilliant speech that I wrote down four of his observations so that I could reflect on them. He pointed out that the issue of literacy and numeracy had dogged the country for many years, and that successive Governments had wrestled with it. Like other Members, he mentioned libraries. He also referred to the important issue of immigration.
	Immigration has produced numerous economic and cultural benefits, but there is no point in pretending that it has been a one-way street. It has also posed significant challenges. As the OECD report made clear, in many cases there is a higher level of illiteracy among members of specific ethnic groups who come to this country, quite apart from the fact that English might not be their first language.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) was passionate about a project in her constituency, and about the excellent work that is being done there. Indeed, throughout the debate we heard about positive projects that are taking place in individual areas. It seems to me that if those projects could be joined up, they would work better as a result.
	The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) made a plea for financial education. He too focused on the importance of libraries, as did the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley)—who, I understand, could be backed at 16/1 with Paddy Power yesterday to win the deputy speakership, but is now at 5/2. While I entirely endorse what he said about the role that libraries could play, the massive level of local authority cuts is causing them to close throughout the country. We cannot say that libraries should be doing more while at the same time ordering authorities to make the cuts that are leading to the closures.
	I would make a similar point to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who referred to Sure Start. There have been huge cuts in Sure Start, 400 of whose centres have closed. It is estimated that a third of its funding has disappeared since the Government came to power. Although I think that the hon. Gentleman is right to ask about Sure Start’s role in relation to literacy and numeracy, I do not think that it can be taken out of context.
	The hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) asked when we will deal with this. When will we see this done? Will this be the Government who really make a difference? I am keen to investigate that question now.
	The OECD report made it clear that Britain is above average in the achievement of level 3 and level 4 literacy in comparison with our European neighbours—ahead
	of Germany, the USA, France, Italy and Spain—but we have many more people than our competitors do who fail to reach level 1, which is people who are functionally illiterate. Adults at level 1 have a reading age of 11. I read today that
	The Guardian 
	has a reading age of 16 and
	The Sun 
	has a reading age of 11, and I share the concern of the hon. Member for Gosport that many of the one in six adults to whom she referred will be able to read
	The Sun 
	but not
	The Guardian. 
	That could explain a lot.
	We face a significant challenge and we need to focus on the steps we are going to take to do something about this. We need to realise that social inequality is a key determinant of academic inequality.

Kelvin Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Toby Perkins: I am tempted to give way, as I am always very keen to hear from my hon. Friend, and his attempt to intervene reminds me that I failed to mention his contribution on the importance of numeracy, particularly in rebalancing the economy. I was surprised and encouraged to hear that he has been annoying his friends on the left. That is not something I have always accused him of, but it is always good to have things revealed in the House.
	We need to look at what is actually happening. There has recently been a big increase in child poverty. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that 3.1 million children will be living in absolute poverty by 2013. Much of the progress that was made on child poverty between 1997 and 2010 is being eradicated and that is not going to reduce the social inequalities that this report tells us we need to address.
	There have been cuts to local authorities and Sure Start centres, and further education funding has been cut by £260 million. The number of working poor is increasing. Countries at the top of the education table are countries that have a social democratic model of government. We need to learn the lessons from this report.
	What would our approach be? First, we need to identify those groups in society who are most vulnerable to being illiterate or innumerate and put in place a series of guarantees to ensure they are not simply thrown into the job market and expected to sink or swim without the skills they need in numeracy and literacy. Any step that would see more children educated by unqualified teachers would be retrograde. We need to see steps to support people who are at greatest risk applying to all school leavers. Those who are not achieving the standards of literacy and numeracy that they should by the age of 16 will be given a chance to catch up with a guarantee of further study in those areas until the age of 18.
	We also need to support Army leavers more. About 39% of Army recruits join with literacy and numeracy skills at level 1. The Army’s extensive apprenticeship programme has already done a fantastic job in improving the literacy and numeracy of many of those people, and one nation Labour would strongly support the Ministry of Defence as a leading Department in tackling that problem.
	We also need to focus on our prisons. Some 48% of the prison population have a reading age of 11 or lower, so there needs to be a real focus on supporting people in our prison population to ensure they get the skills they need.
	The answers to the problems are not purely pedagogical, however; they are very much social. When we still live in a society where people can be in work and in poverty and where the cost of child care can mean it still does not pay to be in work and where children can arrive in school at the age of five unable to speak, we should not be entirely surprised that we face this problem.
	To address it, a one nation Labour Government will ensure that working parents of three and four-year-olds will get 25 hours of free child care a week, paid for by a banking levy worth £800 million a year. We will also legislate for a primary school guarantee that every school is an 8 am to 6 pm school. I agree with what has been said about making better use of our schools. We need to rescue Sure Start from the huge cuts it has had, and we need to work with experts to develop the best solution to overcome these stigmas and barriers.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport on the excellent debate she has instigated and her contribution to it. She is right that this is a vital issue. A tremendous partnership approach is needed in order to improve it and to ensure we have greater opportunities for all, and to make better use of all of our people so we can start to fulfil the promise of Britain.

Matthew Hancock: I echo the words of the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) in saying this has been an excellent debate and congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) and the other supporters of the motion. Not only has the debate been informed and valuable—there is now no need for me to read out many of the statistics I have to hand to set the context as they have already been given—but it is timely given Tuesday’s OECD report. It was a shocking report and it will reverberate down through the education debate in Britain for many years. I hope it will persuade many who are sceptical or resistant to the reforms being put in place to come onside and support more rigour, and support stronger maths and English within schools.
	The OECD demonstrated that over 8 million people in our country lack functional numeracy and over 5 million lack functional literacy. While Britain is strong at the top of the skills range, on these measures we have gone from being about the third best in the world to about the third worst in two generations between 55-year-olds and 16-year-olds.

Toby Perkins: That statistic was given earlier today by the Leader of the House. The OECD report said we were third bottom of 24 countries, not third-bottom in the world. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead people. He is out there fighting for British jobs, and he would not want to tell people that the situation is worse than it is.

Matthew Hancock: Absolutely. We are third from the bottom in the developed world, as surveyed by the OECD. We are 22nd out of 24 in numeracy and 21st out of 24 in literacy and however we want to cut those figures, they are bad.
	I pay tribute to all those who have worked so hard in this area, especially the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education and its chief executive, David Hughes, whose lifelong work has been spent trying to drive up adult literacy and numeracy. So much of the
	solution is about high expectations and standards and, as a country, we have tried over the last decade and more to find one merely by throwing money at the problem. It is clear that while money is part of the answer, it is only part of the answer, and a lot of it is to do with making sure we get the right teaching to the right expectations with the right level of rigour.
	This problem must be solved first in our primary and secondary schools. We can then try to solve it, for those who do not succeed at school, in colleges and further education, and then, of course, for those for whom that still does not work, throughout life. This problem must be tackled at all levels, therefore.
	Let me set out some of the actions the Government have taken. The focus on numeracy and literacy in primary schools is crucial, but, as well as time spent on these issues, we have to make sure we have high expectations of children at a young age. We need to make sure that grammar is taught properly and that mental arithmetic matters—that we do not rely only on calculators, and instead the understanding of basic maths is inculcated deep in pupils. Then we must reform GCSEs and have a more stretching curriculum for teenagers, and then, for those who do not get the crucial C or above in GCSE, make sure they continue to learn English and maths. The introduction of the tech level and the tech bac will drive that among those who do not go down the A-level route. As announced this week, we are introducing a core maths paper that is somewhere between a GCSE and an A-level so that for the 40% who get a C at GCSE but do not continue to study maths there is a qualification that is not as big as a full A-level but allows them to continue studying maths.

Kelvin Hopkins: I wonder whether the Minister is going to touch on teaching methods in primary schools and some of the points I made. Some of his ministerial colleagues and former ministerial colleagues were keen on examining teaching methods, particularly in primary schools, to make sure that we have got that right. If we do not get that right, we will not make much progress.

Matthew Hancock: I could not agree more with almost everything the hon. Gentleman has said in this debate. He made a remarkable contribution and I was coming on to respond in more detail to it. I entirely agree that getting teaching methods that work matters, but what also matters is that the teachers believe in the methods they are using—that is what the evidence shows—and move away from what he called an “utterly misguided” philosophy of learning. I like him more the more I listen; thank goodness there are people on both sides of this House who think that it is utterly misguided not to stretch pupils and not to have rigorous and evidence-based methods of teaching.
	We are also tackling levels of illiteracy among benefit claimants, introducing new conditionality to require the learning of English and looking towards introducing a concept for younger benefit claimants of “earn or learn”, so that we incentivise people into training rather than pay them so long as they do not train for more than 16 hours a week.
	Apprenticeships and traineeships are, of course, close to my heart, and they increasingly require English and maths. Some people say, “If you go into an apprenticeship, you should not have to do English and maths because apprenticeships are for people who are going into jobs
	that do not require those things.” But there is almost no job that does not require a basic standard of English and maths. In this modern workplace—by that I mean around the country, not necessarily in this building, as it is not the most modern of workplaces—the level of English and maths required is vital.

Brian Binley: The Minister knows I am keen on using community assets in a much more imaginative way. How might we do that in this context, particularly with libraries, which are very underfunded, as the shadow Minister stated? How might we improve that situation and have a more involved local community push in this respect?

Matthew Hancock: I was coming on to deal with the role of community facilities, where I understand my hon. Friend is driving forward the argument. Academies and free schools are one way to help, because giving more autonomy to head teachers allows them to use their buildings as they wish. On libraries, managing community facilities more imaginatively is important, and a lot of that is down to the individual managers of individual institutions. I strongly support what he said about that.
	Of course, good teaching of English and maths requires good English and maths teachers, so we are today announcing new Department for Education support for the national centre for excellence in the teaching of maths to develop a maths enhancement programme to upskill existing teachers of maths in further education. The programme will be delivered by professional development leads associated with the centres for excellence in teaching and training. We need more maths teachers, and we are on track this year to have trained more than 600 FE teachers. So we are constantly working to drive up the number of English and maths teachers, as well as the English and maths taught.
	Above all, this comes down to school reform, because without excellent schools we will not solve this generational problem. I hope that the OECD report will have helped to build a stronger consensus behind our school reforms, which remain opposed—inexplicably—by some people who otherwise describe themselves as “progressive”. As the shadow Minister said, the OECD showed the problem of the link between deprivation and education being greater in England and Northern Ireland than elsewhere, but the problem is that poor education entrenches deprivation. Education needs to be the foundation of social mobility, and in the UK that is not happening nearly enough now. The hon. Gentleman did not mention the collapse that the OECD study showed in the results among 16 to 24-year-olds, where this country has gone from the top to very near the bottom. We are driving forward on making sure that we reform our schools system, bring in free schools, give head teachers powers under academisation and improve the standards of teachers. However, we have opposition, and I do not understand why people who otherwise call themselves “progressive” say that they are opposed to these things. I wonder whether we are going to get a change of heart from the Opposition Front-Bench team on so-called “unqualified teachers”, not least because the new shadow Education Secretary once was an unqualified teacher.

Toby Perkins: The report makes it absolutely clear that England and Northern Ireland need to address social inequalities, particularly among young adults—that
	was a key part of its recommendations, which is why I focused strongly on it. Of course I understand that educational inequalities can lead to social inequalities, but this report is saying that social inequalities will lead to educational inequalities.

Matthew Hancock: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to welcome the fact that inequality in Great Britain is at its lowest level since 1986 as a result of the efforts of this coalition Government.
	The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) made a passionate speech. I hope that this debate will not become party political because there is no need for it to be; if we all listen to what the OECD said and drive rigour and standards through schools, it does not have to be party political. He also mentioned mentors. We are reforming careers advice to make it about inspiration and mentoring, and to help brokerage between businesses and schools. If anyone had him as a mentor, I have no doubt that they would absolutely value that. He made many extremely important points, crucially recognising that this has not gone well for a long time and needs to be turned around. He said that we have failed to deliver the most basic of education over a number of years, and that is exactly what we are trying to turn around.

Barry Sheerman: May I remind the Minister that I was also trying to get over the fact that we have been very successful for one section of our population, really expanding things, at the same time as we have been totally unsuccessful with, and almost wilfully neglectful of, the lower achievers?

Matthew Hancock: Absolutely; I believe somebody once called them the forgotten 50% and they were indeed forgotten. That is no longer the case. Educational reform has to be about making sure that everybody can reach their potential. I was going to say that an intellectual error has been made in the past and we have to put it right. I am talking about the argument that because someone has a low level of education or they are undertaking a low-level qualification—level 1 or level 2—what they are doing does not have to be rigorous, stretching and high-quality. At every level of education we have to make sure that we get as much improvement in pupils as possible. We are trying to put right that mistaking of a low level with the “need” for low-quality and sloppiness.
	It is fantastic and an honour to be answering the first speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) has made from the Back Benches for several years. He rightly argued that this is about the fulfilment of lives as well as about jobs and the economy. He, like my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), mentioned the importance of tackling the issues faced by those who have dyslexia, and I could not agree more. It comes back to the previous point: just because someone has dyslexia does not mean they cannot have decent English and maths. It makes those things harder to teach and we need different techniques for teaching them, but we should not have low expectations just because people find something difficult. He also mentioned the importance of the context for learning and, as the Minister responsible for apprenticeships, I often find that people who failed in English and maths in a formal setting thrive in them as
	soon as they encounter them in a job. That is because suddenly it matters whether or not they can do their maths. If they can, they can do their job.
	The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) mentioned Unionlearn, and I am grateful to her for highlighting it. The Government support it and fund it—it would be great to get some acknowledgement for that. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) talked, as he often does, about financial literacy, and it was great to be able to put that into the curriculum. I hope that it works and that we do not think that the job is done just because we have put it in the curriculum. We have to keep an eye on it and make sure that it really works. He also talked a lot about school reform, which is the heart of the long-term solution to the problem.
	My admiration grows for the hon. Member for Luton North. I did not know that he was an economic historian until now.

Kelvin Hopkins: An economist, not an economic historian. I am sorry.

Matthew Hancock: It was going so well. Never mind, I will forgive the hon. Gentleman. I am a former economist, but I have repented my sins.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) talked about employer concern and the problems highlighted by the CBI, the FSB, the BCC and the EEF. I want to put the Government’s position on the record on one point. He said that there is sometimes an impression that people are not mathematically minded and went on to say that they should still be able to learn maths. The concept of people who are not mathematically minded does not exist anywhere else in the world. It is a peculiarly British cultural concept and we must eradicate it, because everybody can do maths. It is just a matter of how they are taught. I absolutely hope we can turn that around, although changing cultural perceptions takes time.
	Many Members talked about probation and prisons and we are working hard to drive up English and maths in prisons. We are paying by results and outcomes rather than simply the number of classes taught to try to improve that.
	The challenge is historic and is set next to an historic publication. The shock from the OECD’s report has brought up an objective fact, which needs to be answered. I hope that it has finally settled the debate between those who say that a constant increase in qualifications passed represents a constant increase in quality of education. Increasing numbers of qualifications matters only when those qualifications are of constant value and we know that they have not been. The evidence shows that we have a serious problem that has got worse in the past 10 years.
	We have learned that, above all else, alone in the developed world, our 16 to 24-year olds are not better educated in English and maths than those aged 55 to 65. Yes, money is important in solving the problem, but money alone is not the answer. Expectations, rigour and challenge matter too. The solution will not happen quickly. It takes years to turn around schools, but then it takes years for those turned around schools to educate the next generation. It is a vital task and I hope that all parties and Members of this House can get behind it so that everybody in this country can reach their potential.

Caroline Dinenage: I thank the Minister of State and the shadow Minister for their words and thank colleagues from both sides of the House for a fascinating and valuable debate. We have heard some thoughtful and thought-provoking speeches, which have demonstrated a huge underlying passion for this important subject.
	There have been some outstanding individual contributions. I am primarily grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). Adult literacy and numeracy are a crusade for me and he has been steadfast in his support on every step of the journey. I feel only sadness that I was not at Swansea university when he was a lecturer there and that I missed him by some years, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), who had that great opportunity in life. I was also extremely honoured that we got to hear my hon. Friend’s speech from the Back Benches. It was outstanding and showed a depth of understanding of this important subject.
	I am grateful to colleagues from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills for their support. The Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills takes the issue seriously and also understands that it is not just the responsibility of BIS to address the issue. That must be done across government and across society.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who is a hero in the world of financial education and has been a champion for the whole issue, asked why I was not more angry in my opening speech. I am angry. I am frustrated, sad and desperately upset that we have failed generations of people in this country through their education and through adult education. We need to grab this issue by the throat and shake it until it works, because people are being failed.
	As the Minister said, the most staggering result of the OECD report is the fact that in the developed world we are the only country in which 16 to 24-year-olds have fewer skills in this regard than their grandparents. The most important point to come out of the debate is that this is not a party political issue. It is much more important than that. We must work on the problem for generations to get it right. There is no quick fix and it will not be solved overnight. We must have policies that will get it right far into the future. It cannot be solved quickly and it is not an issue that should be tackled by just BIS and the Department for Education, as the situation is cross-departmental. For example, the Department for Work and Pensions has plans to get as many people as possible off welfare and into work. That is a noble aim but one that must take account of the vast levels of illiteracy that prevent people from getting and holding down a job. We must put the
	systems in place to recognise that and to help them. The universal credit system, which will be coming in online, presupposes a certain element of not only literacy and numeracy but of computer literacy. That must be a huge concern. In the Ministry of Justice, where the staggering illiteracy rate among prisoners is no coincidence, the promise to reduce reoffending must go hand in hand with promises to tackle illiteracy and innumeracy.
	It is an injustice that illiterate and innumerate adults are cut off from so much, whether that is a rewarding job or just being able to read their kid a bedtime story. That needs to be tackled jointly by the Government, society, community groups and charities—some amazing charities are working on the issue. We must ensure that the injustice does not continue into another generation.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House believes that, with one in six adults functionally illiterate, the UK’s skills gap is preventing the country from fully realising its economic potential; understands that improved literacy rates not only have economic benefits but also have positive effects on an individual’s self-confidence, aspirations and emotional health and wellbeing ; notes that literacy rates for school leavers have shown little change in spite of initiatives introduced by successive governments over recent decades; understands that the social stigma attached to illiteracy and innumeracy often prevents adults from seeking the help they need, which means that signposting illiterate and innumerate adults to Further Education Colleges is not always the most effective course of action; recognises that literacy and numeracy programmes must be made easily accessible to the most hard-to-reach functionally illiterate and innumerate adults if valued progress is to be made; and calls on the Government to renew efforts to provide imaginative, targeted and accessible support to illiterate and innumerate adults.

Ian Murray: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A senior member of the Government party in the other place said live on television at lunchtime that he believed that Royal Mail was significantly undervalued. Given that Royal Mail will enter the stock market system tomorrow and that taxpayers are set to lose out on anything from hundreds of millions to billions of pounds, is there any mechanism by which we could bring the Minister or Secretary of State to the House to explain to the public why the undervaluing of Royal Mail could lose the taxpayer millions?

Dawn Primarolo: That is not a point of order for the Chair, as there is no mechanism by which the Chair can decide Government business on the Floor of the House. I hesitate to suggest that the hon. Gentleman should write to the Minister, although there are Members on the Treasury Bench who have heard his comments. I am sorry to have to disappoint him by saying that that is not within the power of the Chair.

Funding for Local Authorities

Neil Parish: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered funding for local authorities.
	I thank the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee and the Committee for allowing us good time to debate this serious subject.
	In the summer of 2012, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government recognised the penalty for rural authorities—that is, that the formula for allocating funds to local authorities disadvantaged those in rural areas—and improved the sparsity weighting for the formula for the local government financial settlement for 2013-14. That was the good news for rural authorities, and the Government must be commended for recognising that historical inequality and for seeking to improve the funding formula for local authorities to take into account the higher costs associated with delivering public services in rural areas. I fully support the Government in their stated aim.
	However, the Government seemed to have a little wobble. The damping model that the Department chose to minimise the swing in funding for councils wiped out all the gains from the improved formula for rural authorities, and as a result their total funding actually fell faster than that of urban local authorities. I am not seeking to steal money from urban authorities; I seek a fair deal for rural authorities as well.
	The Department allocated a further £8.5 million to the most sparsely populated authorities after the rural fair share campaign. MPs pressed the Department and made our case. However, that is still only a one-off grant for 2013-14, and it distributes the £8.5 million to 95 local authorities in amounts ranging from £649,000 to £856,000. Is the Department considering ensuring that we have a little bit more money than that next year? In fact, I would like another £30 million at least. I probably cannot horse-trade too much, but it must be recognised that the rural authorities are not getting their fare share. Although welcome, the one-off grant makes no material change to funding disparities within the overall £22 billion settlement. That is a very big sum of money.

Ian Mearns: I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that there are significant regional variations in the impact of the cuts. It is not just urban or rural; in some regions, both urban and rural authorities are facing significant disproportionate cuts in relation to national averages. The north-east of England is facing cuts across the board of about 23% in the next two or three financial years.

Neil Parish: The hon. Gentleman is right, because what the Government seem to have done—dare I be so blunt as to say it—is to ensure that those that least need it get the most money, by which I mean the south-east of England. Coming from the west country, I would of course say that. Many of my colleagues from the south-east probably do not necessarily agree with me.

Peter Bottomley: rose—

Neil Parish: It looks as though we have already drawn blood.

Peter Bottomley: It is not a question of drawing blood. I hope that at some stage someone will say how much support there is for the elderly on the south coast—say, in the Worthing district—compared with support for the elderly in the north-east or the south-west.

Neil Parish: My hon. Friend makes a good point, because I believe that will need to be recognised not only in local government funding but in health service funding. In my constituency the town of Axminster has a population profile that matches the one forecast for the country in 2035, meaning that there is a much more elderly population. In Seaton and Sidmouth and along that coastline, there is an increasingly elderly population.

Jim Cunningham: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he agree that the local government funding formula in general needs to be looked at, because there are different problems in different regions, and those require different answers? In Coventry, the local authority has lost £45 million over the last three years and is expected to find another £19 million next year. That is affecting jobs as well as services, so Coventry is down 15%—1.5% above the national average in relation to cuts and resources.

Neil Parish: I started my political life in both district and county council—this is going back to the ’80s—and the formula was just as complicated then. Under successive Governments we have made it even more complicated. I think, dare I say it, that it is all done because if the formula is made complicated enough, no one will understand it and those in government can do what they like. The Government spend a lot of time talking about the spending power of councils. It is not only about that spending power, but about how we get to that spending power and who pays for it. I shall discuss that issue later.
	Urban councils are still receiving 50% more per head than local authorities in rural areas, despite the fact that residents in rural authorities, such as Devon county council, pay 15% more council tax, and many public expenses are more expensive to deliver in sparsely populated rural areas.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: West Somerset, which my hon. Friend knows well, is the most sparsely populated part of England, with the smallest council. As he knows from his days in Somerset county council, we have never been able to catch up with the deficit, simply because the rurality of the area means that there is no way, with our ageing population—it is the same in Axminster—to do that. Perhaps we should look at the future size of these councils to see whether they could provide a joint service to make more efficient use of funding made available through the Government.

Neil Parish: I remember West Somerset well from my local government days. The problem is that it has a population of about 28,000 or 30,000, and if it is necessary to have a raft of chief officers to run a council, it becomes extremely expensive. We must come up with a system whereby some of the very small rural authorities can share their chief officers or combine them, because in this day and age it is difficult to deliver with very small authorities.

Andrew Bingham: The Minister is aware of the work that was done by the Conservatives in High Peak borough council when I served on it. It shares a chief executive and a senior management team, and I am delighted that the Government have now recognised that and given the local authority some money as well.

Neil Parish: My hon. Friend makes a good point. A council in my constituency, East Devon, shares a chief executive with South Somerset. Even though it is a sort of coalition, because one is Liberal Democrat-controlled and the other is Conservative-controlled, it works at officer level. Even though adjacent councils may be of different political persuasions, they can share resources. If it is possible to share administrative resources and cut expenses, it is possible to deliver a far better up-front service. That is what local government finance is for—to give people services, not to be gobbled up in administration. I have believed that all my political life.
	More importantly, the local government settlement for 2014-15 is being frozen until 2020. As a result, the current disparity in funding between urban and rural local authorities will be entrenched, locking in past inequalities. The Government set up the review to settle that disparity, but we now have a damping and a freezing—back to square one for another five years. What is the Minister going to do about it, and how are we going to settle this so that we can transfer funds and have a fair deal?

Daniel Kawczynski: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. He and I both represent very rural constituencies. Does he agree that it is important for the Government to explain to us what work they are doing to fully assess and understand the sheer cost of providing services in rural areas in comparison with inner-city areas, and the impact of that on our constituents?

Neil Parish: I know that my hon. Friend represents his rural constituency in Shropshire very well, and he realises that sparsity of population, distances, small schools and so on make services much more expensive to deliver. The irony of his question is that the Government have already done that work. They have already investigated the situation and come up with a policy to transfer those funds. That is what is so frustrating; they will not carry on with the process. That is why I am particularly keen to get them to look at that again and continue the great work that they have already done. That is all I ask. I am not asking for a new wheel; I am just asking for the present wheel to be rolled a bit further.

Graeme Morrice: The hon. Gentleman is making some sensible and considered points, but does he agree that the unfairness in the system—I know the grant system is incredibly complicated—is exacerbated by the existing plan to top-slice and hold back grant, such as the new homes bonus? That simply amplifies the problems for areas that are already disadvantaged, such as many of the local authorities in my region, including Durham county council and Gateshead metropolitan borough council.

Neil Parish: I do not necessarily want to get into a debate on how the new finance will be handled. Retaining the business rates and the new homes bonus are all part
	of it. A system where it is shared more equally across all authorities in the future may be one answer, but I do not want to argue with all the Government’s policies. I just want them to carry on with the very sensible policies that they had.
	[Interruption]
	Did my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) want to intervene?

Bob Stewart: When invited to intervene, I am delighted to do so. In the area that I represent, Beckenham in Bromley, we sometimes feel that although we are part of London, we are quite hard done by. For example, meeting the statutory requirements to 2018 will inevitably result in a £36 million deficit, so it is not easy. The metropolitan areas also have problems and there are differences between metropolitan areas. Bromley is currently very hard done by.

Neil Parish: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman answers that invited intervention, I remind him that one does not invite interventions, particularly when he is supposed to be speaking for only 15 minutes, but of course he could give way to his hon. Friends if they indicate that they want him to. Otherwise, I hope he will desist.

Neil Parish: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought somebody behind me had asked to intervene, hence I turned around. It was not purposely done, I assure you. In the future I will make sure that I do not invite interventions.
	We are not asking for a change in the Government deficit reduction strategy. We support the Government in taking tough decisions to tackle the budget deficit inherited from the previous Administration. A quarter of all public expenditure is accounted for by the councils so this must be addressed. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, whom I unfortunately invited to intervene, there is some discrepancy in the figures for central London and those for outer London boroughs. The problem with local government formulae is how we invent a system that is fair to all.

Anne-Marie Morris: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Neil Parish: Yes, I will.

Anne-Marie Morris: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an issue in relation to the definition of “rural”? My understanding is that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs uses the rural-50 or the rural-80, whereas in this case the “shire” word has been used, which will inevitably skew the results?

Neil Parish: My hon. Friend, who asked to intervene, is right. There is a different definition in DEFRA from the one used in local government, which does not seem to recognise councils that have a large rural population and larger rural parts of their areas. Why is it that the Department for Communities and Local Government does not recognise the DEFRA definition and may come up with another one? Is it to complicate the grant system still further? It would be cynical, would it not, to suggest such a thing.
	We are here to press the Secretary of State to make good on the long-standing promise to correct the historic imbalance and give rural local authorities their fair
	share of central Government funding, in line with the summer consultation. We call on the Government to reduce the urban funding advantage over rural areas incrementally, year on year, to no more than 40% by 2020. Closing the gap between urban and rural can be achieved within the existing resources, within the period to 2020, without placing any individual authority in a worse position than others, and it is one of the recommendations to be made to the Government by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, in its report on our inquiry into rural communities.
	By reducing urban funding by an extra 0.1% per year of the £24 billion local government funding settlement, the Government can reallocate £30 million to rural authorities and reduce the funding gap from 50% to 40% by 2020. I know that this is a matter of concern across the House. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) and my hon. Friends representing Worcestershire for helping me to secure the debate today. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), who chairs the rural fair share campaign—

Bob Stewart: He is here in spirit.

Neil Parish: Indeed. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness for pursuing the issue with great vigour, for considering the issue with Ministers with such tenacity, and for helping to secure this debate, as well as for the support and information provided by the local authorities in Devon and across the country.
	A quarter of England’s population live in rural communities. Providing services presents many challenges to local government. This is particularly true in rural Devon, where there are serious barriers to services, with nearly 56% of residents living in rural areas across the county and with the house price to earnings ratio well below the national average. Lower than average wages and higher house prices is a trend replicated in other rural local authorities.

Ian Mearns: Reflecting on the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made, I know that many people regarded the council tax and its implementation as a blessed relief in the aftermath of the poll tax in the early 1990s, but unfortunately property valuations have not been reviewed to any great extent since then. An eight-band taxation system might have seemed fair at the time, compared with what there was before, but it has meant an awful lot of people in poor value properties paying a much greater proportion of their income in local taxation.

Neil Parish: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. However, the Government that he supported had 13 years to change that and chose not to. The problem with opening up the issue of council tax banding is that it is probably a very big can of worms. I understand why successive Governments have not gone there, but that does not necessarily mean that one day we will not have to do it.
	One of the biggest obstacles to providing services to a dispersed rural population is the high cost of transport, which has a knock-on effect on nearly all other areas of
	local government responsibility, such as adult and social care services, refuse and recycling, and ground maintenance. In 2009, 42% of households in the most rural areas had regular bus services close by, compared with 96% of urban households. These rural bus links are often the only way for many residents, particularly pensioners, disabled people and the unemployed, to access public services. I think I am right in saying that some 20-odd per cent. of the population of Devon has to go to work on buses, and if there are no buses, it is very difficult for them to do so.

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that that also has a massive affect on education and the cost of getting children to school in rural areas, which is not part of the education funding formula but is part of local authority funding?

Neil Parish: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the distances involved in getting children to school. Also, in rural areas we have many smaller schools, which are very good schools but are more expensive to run.
	Despite the fact that rural areas have been underfunded, I would highlight the very good services that education authorities, schools and those across the piece have managed to deliver in very difficult circumstances. However, that does not mean that we should sit here and allow the Government not to give us a fair share. I want to put it on the record that I believe that we have very good services, despite the meagre amounts being spent on them.

Jim Cunningham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the areas he and I represent have an additional problem in social care, because £0.8 billion has been shifted away from local government to try to fund social care, leaving a gaping hole in the funding.

Neil Parish: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman answers that intervention, I remind him that the Backbench Business Committee’s recommendation was that the opening speech should last between 10 and 15 minutes. Even with the interventions, whether invited or given, he has now been speaking for 22 minutes. A large number of Members wish to speak in the debate, so if he would consider drawing his comments to a conclusion in the near future, I would be grateful.

Neil Parish: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have probably been over-generous in allowing interventions, but I will now carry on and try to finish my speech—

Daniel Kawczynski: Unsolicited interventions.

Neil Parish: Be quiet. [Interruption.] I mean, the hon. Gentleman must be quiet.
	To put it in perspective, Devon county council currently spends over £10 million a year on statutory bus pass schemes, which is twice as much as it can afford to invest in the actual public bus services. I am delighted that the Government are sticking to their promise to maintain concessionary bus passes for pensioners, but
	Devon county council will need to fund them. I am sure that the House will agree that bus passes will do nobody any good if there are no buses on which they can be used.
	Public transport is also a challenge for local authorities in rural areas with large road networks to maintain. Devon has the largest road network in England, with nearly 8,000 miles. I believe that it has as many roads as Belgium. In 2010 the council had to repair around 200,000 potholes due to severe weather, and since July 2012 Devon has suffered significant flooding, which has done untold damage to the roads.
	I will come now to the final part of my speech. The summer consultation showed rural areas gaining more than £30 million. Those gains will be lost because of the chosen damping mechanism, which will actually increase the funding gap between urban and rural areas, the formula grant for rural authorities having fallen between 1.7% and 2.3% more than that for urban authorities. We are not asking Ministers to reinvent the wheel; we are asking them just to knock the corners off and make it round again. We believe that the Government got it right the first time in the summer of 2012 and that the damping model used has prevented that policy from working. I have met the Minister for Local Government and discussed the matter with him. He has been very fair to us, but I want him now to deliver on fairer funding for rural authorities.

Angela Smith: I will preface my comments by referring to the speech made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). For reasons I will outline, I do not believe that the real debate should be about rural versus urban areas. I believe that it should be about the fact that local government is being asked to bear the austerity cuts being applied by the coalition Government. That is the real issue.
	I wish to put on the record my congratulations to Councillor Steven Houghton, leader of Barnsley council, on recently being raised to Knight Bachelor for services to local government, a well-deserved honour. Steve Houghton has got to be one of the best leaders we have in local government. He has done a great deal to develop local government in this country, including designing the future jobs fund, which has now been abandoned.
	Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I was a local councillor before entering Parliament. I was a member of my local council for nine years and was very proud to be a councillor and a cabinet member for education. I now represent the constituency of Penistone and Stocksbridge, which straddles two metropolitan local authorities, Barnsley council and Sheffield city council. It is an incredibly diverse constituency. A large part of it is rural. Indeed, it contains much of the north-eastern aspect of the peak district national park—it does not get any more rural than a national park—within its boundaries. But other parts of the constituency would best be described as semi-rural, suburban and urban.
	In other words, the constituency spreads from the fringes of urban Barnsley and urban Sheffield right out into the valleys of the peak district. In the rural western part of the constituency, one finds all the usual issues: the needs of local farmers and other typical problems,
	such as lack of access to high-speed internet or a decent bus service, and there are all the other issues relating to affordable housing, employment and access to work.
	However, other parts of my constituency, such as the old pit villages of High Green and Dodworth face challenges common to former coalfield areas, as the disappearance of what was essentially a key economic activity rooted in villages has left a huge vacuum in employment and, in High Green, severe social problems. Then there are the urban areas in Sheffield, which carry with them all the seemingly intractable problems we have seen emerge since the deindustrialisation of the 1980s.

Helen Goodman: My constituency is similarly dispersed. Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost of services in rural areas is far higher, and was not she, like me, appalled to hear Tory Councillor Nick Worth of Lincolnshire county council defending the closure of more than half the libraries in Lincolnshire?

Angela Smith: I completely agree. The closure of libraries really worries me. We face similar levels of closure in Sheffield. We are not applauding or welcoming those closures; we are having to deal with the terrible impact that we know they will have in our area. But we know that the reasons for those closures lie with the lack of funding from central Government.
	I have sketched my constituency not because I want to wax lyrical about the area I represent, but because I want to establish a key point that is all too often overlooked when we consider what I call provincial England, meaning England outside London. For too long the debate has been unhelpful, sitting on a platform that polarises the arguments. For too long the argument has been about rural areas versus urban areas, as though the two are literally miles apart. Nothing could be further from the truth, as my constituency exemplifies. As I have already said, I represent deeply rural areas located firmly within a metropolitan borough. I represent rural areas that in the past have supported engineering and coal, railways and ceramics as well as the vital agricultural industry.
	My plea to the Chamber today is this: let us start having a more rational and pragmatic debate about the role of local government, let us stop dividing our country up into areas of interest, and let us start representing properly the interests of all the people of England. Let us not have a debate in which we say, “My rural area isn’t getting enough from the Government, so let’s cut the funding for the metropolitan boroughs.” Let us properly recognise that most parts of England, including the metropolitan boroughs, are more complicated than appears to be the case when we just look at a title such as “Sheffield city council.”

Jim Cunningham: Whether or not we are talking about local government in rural or urban areas, the fact remains that central Government are weakening local government, because one of their proposals, the new homes bonus, takes discretion away from local authorities and puts it in the hands of local enterprise partnerships, and who are they accountable to?

Angela Smith: I accept my hon. Friend’s point. Affordable homes are a key issue in all areas, both rural and urban. It is important that local authorities should have the
	key role in determining, politically, the best way of delivering those new homes—at the city region level in the case of my constituency—across a borough such as Barnsley, which has a lot of green-belt land. In fact, most people will be surprised to hear that the majority of land in Barnsley is green belt.

Daniel Kawczynski: The hon. Lady seems to be implying that it is inherently wrong to voice concerns about differences in funding between rural and metropolitan areas, but I represent a totally rural constituency that receives less than half the funding for educational services than certain parts of inner-city areas, so the hon. Lady cannot blame us for trying to raise those concerns.

Angela Smith: I do not blame anybody for raising concerns about their own constituencies, particularly with regard to education, but that is not the key point in relation to funding for local government services. Metropolitan areas have significant rural aspects. In fact, Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley between them are 70% rural. The way in which the hon. Gentleman expresses his argument is not helpful in delivering more resources for his area. I repeat that the key issue is the central Government cuts to local government funding. The difference between provincial England and the capital is another issue that has been completely overlooked.

Ian Mearns: Before coming to this place I had the privilege and pleasure of being a local authority councillor in Gateshead for 27 years. Like my hon. Friend’s borough, Gateshead is very diverse: it has a concentrated urban core and a big rural hinterland. Councillors who represented the urban core and those who represented the leafy shire had these types of discussions, but we would never have swapped our social problems, because the differences were stark.

Angela Smith: My hon. Friend hits on a key point. That is why I mentioned the old pit villages in my constituency which even now carry the deep scars that were left behind, not just on the landscape but on the lives of the people who were, in effect, abandoned following the wave of closures in the late 1980s and early ’90s. People underestimate how difficult it is for an authority such as Barnsley to rebuild an economy that was built almost entirely in villages. It is not easy to rebuild that type of economic infrastructure once it has disappeared.
	Local government provides many of the public goods that our constituents consume, whether they live in rural, suburban or urban areas. These include emptying bins, educating our children and picking up the pieces of shattered lives when things go wrong. Local government is the backbone of our civil society. There is no doubt, however, that it is approaching a crisis that is not of its own making, but that has been made in the offices of No. 10 and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
	We have all seen the infamous graph of doom, which shows that councils will eventually run out of resources to run anything except the most basic of services. For my two councils that catastrophe will occur in 2018, when all discretionary spending will disappear and major cuts will have to be made to adult social care and other
	core functions. Councils up and down the country are being asked to do more and more, but with less and less resource.
	In addition, it is clear that this Government decided early on to contract out many of their austerity measures for delivery to local councils across the country. The average cut to departmental budgets has been about 7% in real terms according to the special interest group of municipal authorities, but local authorities have seen their share of funding fall by 27% over the same period, with only benefits and welfare being cut more, which, of course, has in itself had a direct impact on demand for local authorities.
	To compound matters for the core cities, while the average loss of Government support in England will be £240 per household in the years 2013-14 and 2015-16, the core cities will see a reduction of £352 per household. On the issue of rural and urban areas, metropolitan areas are bearing a large part of the local government reductions—much more than has been acknowledged so far in this debate—which is not at all helpful in terms of delivering for the rural areas in those metropolitan boroughs. That is on top of the already unequal cuts that core city authorities have experienced since 2010, which have seen them lose a third of their grants from central Government.
	If that was not bad enough, these cuts have not been the end of it for many local authorities. The hidden cuts, including those major cuts to grants, are not so obvious to many of our constituents. For example, a £400 million cut occurred when council tax support was transferred to local authorities, and the cut to the early intervention grant removed £430m at a stroke from local authorities. These cuts are now on a scale never seen before and they are having a chilling effect on local services.
	Contrary to the belief of the Secretary of State, local government has not been a place of excess. In fact, it has been recognised for many years as the most efficient branch of government, and that makes it even more likely that cuts to its funding will have to come out of the services it provides.

Rory Stewart: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Smith: No, because I have already taken up a fair amount of time due to interventions.
	By the end of this financial year Sheffield will have made savings amounting to £182m—about a third of its discretionary budget. As many will know, that is because the only part of the budget that councils can actually manipulate is relatively small. In the case of Sheffield, it is about 16% of the overall budget, meaning any savings have to be focused on that relatively small proportion of the available resource. That has had a huge impact on leisure, the arts and environmental and street scene functions. Indeed, the impact is being felt across the country, hence the campaigns springing up against library closures everywhere. In Sheffield it has led to the closing of Don Valley stadium, the removing of funding for leisure centres—the only two leisure centres in my constituency have both closed—as well as a significant reduction in library services and a move to fortnightly bin collections. The story is the same in Barnsley, with the £35 million removed from its budget leading to library and leisure centre closures and cut backs in grants to voluntary organisations and other vital services.
	Our local authorities are becoming shadows of what they once were. Local people in my two boroughs are increasingly being asked to travel further to access services such as libraries and leisure centres at a time when funding for local bus services is also being cut by central Government. If this situation continues, how far will people have to travel, paying increasingly expensive bus fares, to get to the services they need?
	As has been said, on 1 April the Government introduced the new business rate retention scheme, which fundamentally changed the way in which local authorities receive their resources. Although these changes to the new settlement funding assessment make it difficult to make a comparison between previous and future years, the end result for Sheffield and Barnsley seems to be the same—another round of cuts, with Barnsley having £40 million less to spend up to 2015 and Sheffield facing a further shortfall of £80 million up to 2015, rising to £106 million by 2018. To put those figures in perspective, £80 million equates to Sheffield’s current total spend on libraries, environmental heath, trading standards, refuse collection, crematoriums, street lighting, youth services and services to people with mental health issues.
	The new settlement funding assessment, along with the retention of business rates, means that from now on the only way my two local authorities and many others can realistically grow their revenues is through growing the business rate income. Indeed, that is the exact intention of the Government’s thinking. That is great for Westminster, because companies are falling over themselves to locate there, but not so great for Barnsley, given the difficulties it faces. That does not mean that Barnsley does not want to compete or attract new business, or that progress has not been made, but it is hard. The borough, along with its neighbour, Sheffield, still has a long way to go. That is hardly surprising, given the deindustrialisation that it suffered in the ’80s. Even if businesses can be attracted, the work that is required to fill the economic gap left by the contraction of traditional industries is immense. To fill Sheffield’s £38 million funding gap for next year, the equivalent of two new Meadowhall retail centres would have to be built. That is a tall order to say the least.
	I started my comments by saying that local government is important. It is also true that more and more people will require the services that it provides. Those who rely on local authorities the most are the elderly, the young and the vulnerable. The possibility that councils will run out of money for all but the most basic of services is fast becoming a reality. As I said earlier, Sheffield will run out of money for all functions other than children’s and adults’ services, and will have to start cutting even those key functions, by 2018. Every day, I hear stories of vulnerable people being isolated more and more as councils pull out of the services that they used to provide. I fear the sort of society that we are becoming as councils stop providing the support that they have provided until now.
	If the Government continue down the already well-trodden path of exporting their austerity measures to local authorities, many parts of the country will see local services cease. It is the most vulnerable, the elderly and future generations who will bear the brunt. It does not matter whether those people live in rural areas in Devon, Sheffield or Barnsley, or in metropolitan or urban areas—they will suffer.

Anne-Marie Morris: Clearly, we are in tough times. It is therefore absolutely right that we endeavour to get more for less. The Government have been very prudent in doing two things: managing budgets and costs, and pushing down much of the decision making to a local level. I am particularly fond of the localism agenda.
	However, I represent a very rural constituency in Devon and I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who secured this debate, that there is a divide in how funding has been allocated. It is to the credit of the Government that they have recognised that divide. As my hon. Friend said, the challenge is in getting the Government to “get on with it”. It is clearly inappropriate that urban authorities have 50% more to spend than more rural authorities. There is a big job to do.
	The cuts to local authority funding have been criticised by Opposition Members. I do not know how many of them were listening to BBC Radio 4 two days ago, but it cited an ICM poll showing that there was a good deal of satisfaction with local government services. The areas that were of concern were social care and potholes, which have a particular impact in rural areas and areas with elderly populations.

Angela Smith: I am sorry to intervene on the hon. Lady when I have just spoken, but people in my area cannot exhibit any satisfaction with their leisure centres because they have both been closed and they no longer have any.

Anne-Marie Morris: No survey is perfect, but I do not believe that this one is any less representative than any other. I think that the findings are good.

Daniel Kawczynski: My hon. Friend rightly mentions the important ICM survey. Six out of 10 people think that services are better than they were in 2008. Does that not exemplify the point that, by utilising resources more effectively, services can be provided without increasing council tax massively?

Anne-Marie Morris: My hon. Friend is quite right.
	The challenge is to ensure that, in rural areas, we get the job done. As has been mentioned, there are problems with the way in which the Government define rural—whether we should use the shire definition, the rural-80 or the rural-50—and with how damping was applied. There are questions to be asked about whether that was done in an appropriate way. As has also been mentioned, there has been some top-slicing of the new homes bonus, so some money that would have gone to local government is going to local enterprise partnerships. Those are all issues that the Government could sensibly look at.
	The Government have said that rural areas must do the right thing. They have said that what they proposed for rural areas was fair because there was still fat to be cut. In Devon, council tax has been frozen for the past three years, 3,000 staff have been lost, spending has been cut by £100 million and 98% of council tax is being collected. Fraud accounts for only 0.003% of the budget, which is a very small amount in the grand scheme of things. Our reserves are also relatively modest.
	There are two separate pots, but the one for ongoing operational costs covers only two days of operating costs and the other covers planned future development.
	I understand what the Government are trying to do—we must clearly manage costs—but Devon has done its best to manage its books. It now has to find £130 million of savings. It has looked hard and is now looking for the last £46 million. It is looking at some of the areas that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith): youth services, day care centres, libraries, residential care, children’s centres and community transport. I absolutely agree with her that those things matter.
	The challenge is how we address this matter. I say to the Government: let us walk the walk and not just talk the talk. Let us be honest that there was something not quite right in the funding formula and look at it again. Let us also be honest about the top-slicing of the new homes bonus. My concern is that LEPs have not been running for very long. Although I am sure that some of them are more than capable of sensibly using a top-sliced chunk for infrastructure projects, there are others that are very early in their development. Many councils have been planning infrastructure projects for a long time, but now find that the funding is being moved to another body. That should give us pause for thought.
	The two areas of dissatisfaction in the ICM survey were potholes and care for older people. Devon has £700 million-worth of work on the roads that has not been done, never mind the problems that are caused by the winter. If we are to reform local government spending, we must look at the Bellwin formula. The way in which it was calculated meant that it gave Devon only half of what it needed to get the roads back in order. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned, that was partly because we have 8,000 miles of road to deal with.
	Buses are another key issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, bus passes costs us £10 million and we then have £5 million left to spend on public buses. He said that many people rely on public buses to get to work. Indeed, whether it is to get to work or for any other purpose, more people use the buses than the trains, so it is short-sighted to fail to provide funding for that.
	Of course, we cannot forget education and schools. Devon is almost, although not quite, at the bottom of the league table. It is 145th out of the 151 local education authorities. It receives £395 per pupil below the average. Given the additional costs because of transportation and the size of the schools, that is untenable. The Government have recognised that, but we need them to do something.
	The Government have promised to put some money from the NHS into local government. However, there is a lack of clarity about how that will happen and how much money it will be. Without that information, it is difficult for local government to sort out its finances.
	Finally, although it is absolutely right that communities should work with local authorities to do what they can together, leaving it to the local community to pick up all the work that cannot be afforded is not realistic. A number of community transport groups have come to
	me because demand well outstrips supply. They are struggling to cope with the number of people who are trying to get to hospital appointments, many of whom have wheelchairs. There are simply not enough drivers or vehicles. We applaud those in the voluntary sector for the fantastic job that they do, but, as the squeeze comes, we need to recognise that they cannot completely fill the gap and that they need help and support in trying to do so.

Clive Betts: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) on his new responsibilities as a shadow local government Minister, which are well deserved. I am sure he will do just as well at holding the Government to account as his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), whom I congratulate on her achievements in the job and wish success in her new job.
	The Local Government Association, whose figures I believe are accurate—it is a cross-party, Conservative-led group—states that in the course of this Parliament, Government funding to local government will be cut by 43% in real terms, which is more than twice the level of cuts experienced across government as a whole. Why is that? I hope the Minister will respond to that question.
	Do Ministers somehow feel that the services that people receive from libraries, sports centres, environmental health, parks and street cleaning are less important than anything else? I suggest that they are not. Do they believe that local government is somehow less efficient and therefore has more ability to make cuts without damaging services? I do not think there is any evidence of that—indeed, the evidence has shown the opposite over the years. Local government has generally been more efficient and more effective in bringing about efficiency savings. Or, in the phrase that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) used, is it simply about the Government contracting out the responsibility for making the cuts to somebody else, namely local councils? I suspect that that is probably the reality. Why have local services been picked out for larger cuts than anything else?
	My second point is about the distribution of the cuts. We can argue about that, and everyone will have their own view, but it seems slightly unreasonable that Sheffield, despite all the demand for local services from local people and all its problems and challenges, should have received cuts of about £200 per head of population, whereas down in Windsor the cuts are £40 per head of population—five times less. I know the Minister will say that it is because cities such as Sheffield get more in grant, so they have more grant to cut. However, why have they had more grant than elsewhere in the past? We can argue about fine amounts, but essentially it is because they have more problems, more challenges and less resources than areas such as Windsor. That is true of many northern cities, which are the ones that we expect to be the powerhouse for growth and for rebalancing our economy. They are receiving the largest percentage cuts.
	We can add in the cuts to the fire service, and there are also the new proposals that will redistribute health money away from cities such as Sheffield, because there
	will be less recognition of need in the formulas. Cuts in different services in the same areas will multiply the effects.
	It is not just Labour authorities such as Sheffield that are saying that the cuts cannot be sustainable but the Local Government Association and Sir Merrick Cockell, who is a very reasonable man. He speaks well for local government as a whole on behalf of a Conservative-led, cross-party grouping that says the cuts are unsustainable. Those comments have been repeated by Conservative authority leaders such as the one in Kent, who says that there is no more capacity to keep on making cuts while keeping local government services sustainable.
	The LGA states that, on top of the 43% cuts in this Parliament, there will be a gap of another £15 billion if the cuts continue to 2020, which local government simply will not be able to find. We know from its briefing—I have also had discussions with it about this—that based on the Government’s current forecast, there are 56 councils whose current levels of spend are 15% higher than their income is likely to be by 2015-16. There is a gap of 15p in the pound between their income forecasts and their current levels of spend, so some of those councils will get into serious financial difficulties. They are not councils of any one party persuasion, and they are not solely in metropolitan or rural areas—they are councils across the piece.
	We know that the Department for Communities and Local Government monitors that matter, and we hope it is talking to the LGA about it, because it is a serious problem. The graph of doom has been mentioned, and whereas three or four years ago it was a bad idea that might happen at some stage, it is now a serious prospect.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge mentioned the situation in Barnsley, and I will obviously talk about Sheffield. There will have been £182 million of cuts between the beginning of this Parliament and 2013-14—the council has had to make those reductions. On top of that, we know that in 2014-15 and 2015-16, a further gap of £80 million will have to be bridged. If we take the projections forward to 2018-19—the Chancellor has indicated clearly his intention that there will be no rowing back from further cuts—there will be another £26 million on top. That money cannot be found without cutting into statutory services, because there is no leeway at all on discretionary services.
	The figures that Sheffield council has produced for its current spending show that 38% of the budget goes on care for adults and children. What is often forgotten, however, is the contractual commitments that councils cannot get out of. The whole waste collection and disposal service in Sheffield is contracted to Veolia. Modifications can be made at the margins—there is already an alternate weekly bin collection—but long-term commitments in the incinerator and waste disposal contract cannot be altered. Any change made in such contracts has a financial penalty attached to it.
	There is also the new private finance initiative scheme in Sheffield. It is absolutely great—the roads in Sheffield are being repaired, and we are delighted with what is being done. I congratulate the Government on supporting the scheme, which the previous Government drew up, and the council on implementing it. However, that PFI commitment is for the next 25 years and cannot be changed. There are also repayments on borrowing for
	schools and so on, which cannot be ducked out of. Such contractual commitments and debt repayments make up 46% of the budget, so that leaves 16%.
	I have given the figures for the further reductions that are in the pipeline through to 2018-19. By then, the 16% discretionary funding that remains after statutory services, contractual commitments and debt repayments have been taken into account will have gone. There will be nothing left. It is not about which libraries will be closed, because no libraries will remain open. That is a serious situation in Sheffield, which is mirrored in other parts of the country. It is not about one authority somehow failing, it is a potential failure of local government as a whole, not through its own fault but simply because it will not have the necessary resources from central Government and will not be able to raise the money itself. It is a serious situation.

Ian Mearns: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and highlighting the drastic situation facing many councils, particularly in the north and north-east. I am afraid that when I talk to colleagues on the Government Benches, they often seem completely oblivious to the plight of councils such as my own in Gateshead, or those in Northumberland, Durham, Newcastle or Middlesbrough. Local authorities in the whole north-east region are facing average cuts of about £296 a dwelling in the next two years.

Clive Betts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I would add that it is not just Labour councils in the north, with all their problems, that will face that situation. A number of smaller councils in the south and south-west will face almost a meltdown situation in the next few years if the same policy is continued.

Diana Johnson: In his capacity as Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, has my hon. Friend given any thought to the effect on the local economy of the reduction in spend by local authorities? In areas such as Hull that are quite disadvantaged in the first place, cuts to local authority spend and procurement will mean that the ability to get growth into the local economy is cut severely.

Clive Betts: There is quite a lot of evidence that there is a real difficulty for local economies. In the past, the larger grants were generally directed at authorities with real difficulties, often in areas where industry had been run down. Those areas often had a higher reliance than others on public sector expenditure, and my hon. Friend is right that the reductions in that expenditure are having a disproportionate impact on those communities. As I said, we are in a serious position. I do not think Ministers recognise where we could be heading—perhaps they hope they might be in another job by the time it happens. We can all wish for better things for ourselves, I suppose.
	Let me move the debate forward in a slightly different way. We are where we are, but where will local government go in the future? A bit ironically I suppose, the one good point that might come out of this is that local government is now less reliant on Government grants for funding. Government grants have been cut by nearly half, so a bigger proportion of money comes from taxes that local authorities raise. If we are to look forward to vibrant local government, a less centralised state, and localities being less dependent on central Government
	for funding, and if we are to be localist and look at the balance of power and the things the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee is doing, we must not simply go back to where we were and recreate the grant systems. We must also consider how we can make local government more financially independent in the future.
	There will always be an element of redistribution—we have great inequalities in our country so redistribution will always be necessary—and there will always be a case for some element of Government grant. One problem is that, at present, that element all comes from business rates. Because of that, some sensible ideas the Government have had about localising business rates have become convoluted and complicated because those rates both reward development and try to redistribute from those areas with greater resources to those with the greatest need. In principle, however, that is to be welcomed, although in future we will still need an element of Government grant for redistribution.
	Why not take up the LGA’s proposals, give the money to local authorities and allow them to distribute it? That would stop councils simply complaining to the Government that they do not have enough money while others have too much. That happens in Denmark, which has a grown-up system. They sit down and negotiate between local and central Government about the amount of money to be passed over, and local government then makes the redistribution between different local authorities. That has worked for a long time. I would have thought most Ministers would welcome with open arms the idea that they would not be responsible for every allocation to every council in the country. Let us see how radical Ministers can be. The LGA was brave in putting forward that proposal, so let us at least look for radical solutions.
	The one tax that local government controls is council tax, which is now virtually frozen because of actions by this Government and the previous one. I want to be critical of them both. We had the nonsense of capping under the previous Government—I spoke against that a number of times in the Chamber—and the nonsense of the referendum under this Government. That is not about democracy but about trying to control local government spending. The idea that central Government should have to call a referendum if they want to change income tax or VAT is clearly nonsense and no Government would ever allow it. Local councils ought to be elected and then free to raise the money. If the electorate do not like it, they will vote for somebody else, and that is what democracy at local level should be about. I am against the referendum proposals and against capping.

Daniel Kawczynski: The Labour party is making great play about the cost of living. In previous years we saw massive increases in council tax, year on year. I remember in Shropshire under a Labour administration that council tax went up by 16% in one year, which had a devastating impact on people with fixed incomes. Surely the hon. Gentleman understands the importance of freezing council tax in these difficult times.

Clive Betts: Of course I understand that and any council would want to try to minimise increases in council tax. However, let us also make clear that cost of living increases can come from a local library closure because people have to buy books instead of borrowing them
	for free, or from the closure of a leisure centre when a family has to book into a private club that involves a lot of extra cost. Cost of living increases can come in other ways, including through cuts in public services.
	I also argue strongly that it is nonsense to have local government’s main tax based on a valuation carried out in 1991, and it is ridiculous that 20 years on we have not had a revaluation. The previous Government, this Government, and the previous Conservative Government all bottled out—it is all too difficult. In the end, we have a completely unrealistic situation. No one understands the system anymore, which is an attack on democracy and accountability.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) in his new role will probably not want to comment on this point, but if we are to reform council tax and make it fairer, the relationship between the value of properties and the amount people pay should be reformed. Those in very expensive, large houses should pay more, but why bother with a mansion tax? All we have to do is increase the higher council tax bands, and ensure that the money that comes in goes to local government and does not get siphoned off by the Treasury for other purposes. That is why I am against the mansion tax—I put that on the record to ensure that I have been critical of what both Governments have done.

Ian Mearns: We have an eight-band system, but it is ridiculous to have a national mean of band D when in a borough such as Gateshead around 65% of all properties are in band A. People in that area in modest properties and on low incomes end up paying much more of their personal income as a proportion of local taxation. That is ridiculous and unfair.

Clive Betts: There is a case for review on whether band A should be also split, and there is a good argument for that to make the whole system fairer.
	We must also look for other sources of funding for local government. I welcome the report by Mr Travers that the Mayor of London has initiated, which is a good contribution to a debate on how local government should be financed. I am not saying I agree with all the recommendations—the report is about London in isolation, although I am interested that the core cities are starting to engage in the argument, which raises questions about the rest of the country—but it is good that the Mayor has stimulated that debate. He has invited me and other Members to meet him to discuss that issue, and the Communities and Local Government Committee may initiate an inquiry into the matter. At least, however, the issue of how we can get more independent sources of funding for local councils has been raised.
	Why not look at income tax again? I remember the Liberal Democrats when they were a radical party putting forward new ideas, not just agreeing with the Conservative party about things. They used to promote local income tax. I disagreed with them then because they wanted to replace council tax. I suggest—there was a report on local finance by the Select Committee in the previous Parliament—that we have local income tax as well, and make the local authorities responsible for a bigger percentage of the money they raise.
	The Communities and Local Government Committee recently went to Sweden where people’s income tax demands include an amount for central Government, an amount for the county, and an amount for the
	municipality. The amount paid to the municipality is greater, because the services it provides cost more and are more important to local people. That is how Sweden operates. I know that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has looked at designating a certain percentage of income tax for local councils. That is a step forward, but why can councils not vary things? If councils want to vary services and local people want better services and to pay for them, why can there not be differences in different parts of the country? That is a challenge and a debate to be had. There is no one solution at this stage, but at least let us start to think radically about a way forward. We cannot simply go back to the idea that it will all come from central Government and council tax.
	We also need to reform capital finances—for heaven’s sake, the cap on the housing revenue account is nonsense. Everyone who has looked at the issue can see that prudential borrowing rules apply to every other aspect of local government finance in the capital, apart from housing. Let local government be free to build the homes that people need, and let Treasury control move back from local government borrowing. The prudential rules exist and can be audited, and local authorities can be held to account.
	Let us also hope for Government support for the LGA’s idea of a municipal bond agency, so we can return to a situation in which people can invest in their communities through bonds, with a good rate of return, so they can see where the money is going to improve services locally. There are lots of good ideas. We rightly focus on the impact of the cuts, but we should also look at how we deal with the situation in future.
	The cuts the Government are inflicting on local government are unfair. There are not only cuts on local government, but on local services that people greatly value. Those cuts should not be that much greater than the cuts in the rest of government. The distribution of those reductions is unfair. At the same time, we must recognise the current situation and that we have a challenge for the future. How do we address it and make local government more financially independent? How can we give local government greater means to raise resources for their local services? If we can meet that challenge, it will be good not merely for local government and local councils, but for local communities, democracy and accountability. That is well worth debating.

Annette Brooke: I find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) on a large number of his points. I am particularly pleased that he likes local income tax and the mansion tax. We clearly have a lot in common. Perhaps future campaigns will be a little different.
	I have a quote on local government: “Local government is looking over a precipice. We will only be able to run statutory services such as adult social care and waste services.” That comes from a Liberal Democrat council leader, but it could have come from a local council leader of any party. We must consider that view—from the precipice or cliff—against the view that it is scaremongering. We need clarity. What is the true position? Every hon. Member who has spoken has identified the lack of transparency in the system, and I shall return to that point.
	As hon. Members know, local government accounts for around 25% of all public expenditure. Given that the budget deficit had to be tackled, that was always going to take a big hit from cuts to public expenditure—I am on message now. Local government has shown great skill in reducing budgets. Committed local authorities under all parties have protected front-line services. I should like to put on the record that that is a credit to many councillors throughout the country, particularly given that satisfaction in council services has increased. Many hon. Members were surprised to hear the result of the research reported on the BBC showing that most voters believe that schools, bus services, parks, libraries and bin collections have improved in the past five years even as budgets have been reduced. Credit must be given where it is due.
	Many hon. Members have mentioned bus services. I remind the House that I represent a constituency that has every type of council within it—there is a unitary authority in an urban area, and a county council and several district councils in the rural part—so I find it difficult to argue that one area needs more money than another for specific services; it is a difficult situation. Currently, the county council is consulting on the future of bus services, and it is possible that some of my constituents in villages will not be able to get to work or to access health or leisure services. The price of school transport has rocketed in price for the over-16s. That is compounded by the rising age of participation. I shall keeping making the point on the Floor of the House that relatively poor hard-working families in the rural areas in my constituency are faced with bills of £450 or £750 per year for their 17-year-old to get to school. Members on both sides of the House have been remiss in allowing the age of participation to increase without putting finance in place for bus services. I urge all Departments—the Department for Education, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport—to talk about that together because it is so important.
	Apart from cuts to rural bus services, I am faced with cuts in the urban area on routes where the buses are well used. The bus companies simply take the decision to cut the routes off without consultation, which is shocking. There seems to be no accountability. As far as I can tell, bus grants have been maintained. Some decisions are a ploy to ask for money from the local authority, but some are taken because the bus companies are not there to provide a service for my constituents.

Ian Mearns: The hon. Lady makes telling points, but I remind her that, in debates prior to the abolition of the education maintenance allowance, we warned Government Members that there could be implications down the line for people in rural areas.

Annette Brooke: The hon. Gentleman might recall that I spoke against scrapping the EMA because I was concerned about the impact on sixth-form choice when there is insufficient help from other services. That needs to be addressed. We have bursaries, but I thought the EMA should be reformed. I do not believe that there is enough support, particularly given the increase in the age of participation. I certainly welcome the fact that the Government reviewed the situation and put extra money into schools and colleges to help the most needy, but there is not enough money to cover the current situation, especially in rural areas.
	In June, the spending round announced a further 10% real-terms reduction in core local government grant funding. The LGA analysis of the subsequent consultation covering the settlement funding assessment showed that money received up front will be reduced by 15% in real terms. The Government frequently use the figure of a 2.3% cut for 2015-16. They give the impression of a certain level of cuts, but it is all much more complex. We are told that local government will get extra money for health and social care, but then we discover that that is not all new money. We know there is top-slicing and the extra top-slicing. Councils have the opportunity to bid for lots of different pots of money, but that causes great uncertainty at a time of financial difficulties.
	We have had some good news, which I notice Opposition Members have so far not mentioned, such as city deals and growth regions, which will put extra money and opportunities into the core cities outside London. That is exciting decentralisation work, and we must give credit for that important work.
	Local government faces both opportunities and threats, although some opportunities can also be seen as threats. The freeze in council tax, and the extra money from the Government to support that, has been an opportunity for local councils in some respects, and I welcome the fact that residents in some of the councils I represent have benefited from the council tax freeze. On the other hand, the freeze removes democratic freedom, which is not a good thing.
	A further big opportunity can be found in the merging of health and social care budgets, which is an enormous step forward of which the Government can be really proud. But no council knows how much money it will get back for social care. How can councils plan or operate in a business-like fashion if they do not have that certainty? One of the biggest threats has to be the escalating cost of adult social services. I represent an area with an ageing population, and local government has to be given enough support to bring health and social care budgets together to innovate. Local government has not been backwards in innovating over time—I think it has been the most innovative part of government—but the Government should work with local government to ensure that we bring out all the opportunities that are available.
	I agree with hon. Members that top-slicing the new homes bonus is a threat. Allocating that money to a local enterprise partnership is an issue. I am quite in favour of LEPs, but they do not have any democratic foundation. If an LEP covers an area with several councils—a county council and two unitaries, for example—the small district councils that will lose their new homes bonus do not have a seat on the board, because they cannot all have seats on the board. I would like the Minister to address that problem. We have opportunities and we have threats, but it is the Government’s role to support councils in getting achievements from those opportunities.
	The rural fair share campaign has been mentioned. I support the campaign and I know the struggles my small district councils have in order to survive, but it has to be part of a bigger re-examination of local government finance. However, it was great to get some movement and support on the problems we can all identify, regarding the extra costs of running a rural authority.

Graham Stuart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support for the rural fair share campaign. One of the problems is that the Government are looking at local government finance, but they are freezing in, not just damping, the inequities that see people in rural areas, who earn less on average than people in urban areas, pay more in council tax and receive fewer services: 50% more goes per head to urban areas than to rural areas. That cannot be frozen and kept in place at a time of change; it must be unwound, and there must be other reforms.

Annette Brooke: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work he has done in leading on this issue. All types of councils have their problems. This is a strong issue, and when there is a problem it does not help to build it in—the whole situation has to be opened out. I mention in passing the concern of parish councils and what will happen to their funding with regard to the local council reduction scheme. Perhaps the Minister will update us on that. I remember attending a meeting with parish councils when the Minister was answering questions on that matter.
	In conclusion, local government is facing a tough situation and that has to be accepted. I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield South East that we should look at what local government does best, pulling local government services together and providing greater opportunities to bring more services together. We believe in localism; let us enable localism to happen. By supporting local initiatives, so much more can be delivered. I agree that local government borrowing that complies with prudential rules should be facilitated. That is a fundamental principle. I want to see more services delivered by local government, not fewer—for there to be a bigger range, with better quality and other services facilitated. Sometime it is right to bring in the voluntary sector, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who made the point that we cannot delegate everything to the voluntary sector.
	I hope the Minister will listen. There is a problem. Let us recognise it and support local councils to do what they do best.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. A number of Members still wish to speak and the speeches so far have been rather long. I am not going to apply a time limit at this point, but I will ask Members to take no more than 10 minutes, including interventions. If they take longer, the time limit will be reduced considerably to get us to the winding-up speeches at a reasonable time for the Minister to answer what is a full debate. The clock is not going on at this point, but if Members cannot manage it by themselves by watching the clock, I am afraid there will be a time limit. Please do not take longer than 10 minutes, including interventions.

Grahame Morris: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing the debate and on gaining the support of Members across the House, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time.
	I will make some general points, but I would also like to make specific points regarding my region, the north-east, and my local authority, Durham county council. It is
	tempting to characterise the debate in terms of urban against rural and north against south—I can see the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton is smiling. We are not allowed to refer to pictographs, but when we analyse the figures produced by the Local Government Association and the Association of North East Councils, it is clear that it is not simply a rural versus urban issue—and particularly not a north-south issue—because many of the affected regions are in the south-west. Many inner city London boroughs are badly affected, as are our great northern cities.
	I shall make some general points to begin with and then get down to some of the specifics about my own area. The Minister on the Front Bench is responsible for the fire authorities so I thought it would be remiss—given that we met representatives of our fire authorities this week and found that they were extremely concerned about the implications of the settlement—not to mention that issue. The scale of cuts that the fire authorities are going to have to make will amount to taking out an entire brigade from the north-east region. I am not suggesting that that would happen, but taking out the whole of the County Durham and Darlington brigade would be the consequence if the cuts fell on a single brigade in our region. The level of cuts is unprecedented. My fear is that austerity is failing, not just our region but Britain. Nowhere is that more apparent than in the evidence of cuts to local government funding.
	My local authority has made written representations to the Minister, and I hope he will consider very seriously the points it has made. Indeed, after the comprehensive spending review of 2010, local authorities faced significant spending cuts in the emergency budget. We knew, and warned at the time, that these would inevitably impact on services, jobs and growth. Various figures have been quoted, but for the record, my local authority, which is Durham county council, has needed to make savings of £123 million during the course of this Parliament. That has resulted in nearly 2,000 job losses—approximately 20% of the work force—and it has certainly hit front-line services and vital support for the local community.
	Along with all local authorities, mine understood that local government would be expected to contribute to reducing the national deficit, but as a number of Members have pointed out, the consequences of this level of cuts have been astounding. Local authorities certainly did not expect to be targeted for disproportionate cuts when the Government were unable to address the problems that had to be faced in any other way.
	I am worried because the Government have missed a number of economic targets that they set for themselves and because the very slow recovery we have seen—probably the slowest for over 100 years—is being exacerbated by the scale of the cuts in local authorities, particularly when it comes to discretionary expenditure. There is no money left for economic development. I see some Government Members shaking their heads, but I am afraid that that is certainly the case for Durham county council. As a large unitary council, it had a successful track record of working in partnership with both public and private sector organisations to deliver major infrastructure projects and to make a contribution towards jobs and growth. Its capacity to do so, however, has been completely taken away by the scale of the cuts.
	When the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that he intended to eliminate the deficit by 2015, he promised
	in the 2010 comprehensive spending review statement that there would be “fairness”. He said:
	“Fairness also means that, across the entire deficit reduction plan, those with the broadest shoulders will bear the greatest burden”.—[Official Report, 20 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 951.]
	Frankly, those strike me as quite nice words, but it was a hollow promise. We now know that the Government will miss their deficit reduction plan, and it seems that the most deprived areas and the most vulnerable people are having to pay most for the Government’s extra years of austerity. Clearly, disproportionate cuts are being imposed on hard-pressed local authorities, particularly in regions such as mine. Durham county council now faces cuts amounting to more than 40% of its budget. It no longer needs to find savings of £123 million; it is now expected to find savings of more than £222 million by 2017. The austerity and spending cuts will extend into the next Parliament.
	According to a report by the Association of North East Councils, the north-east region faces a “disproportionately high share” of the £5.5 billion cuts in council budgets that will be made between now and 2016. That means an average cut of £296 per household in the north-east, compared with a national average of about £233 per household. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Local Government Association has forecast that, during the period of the current Parliament, local government’s core funding will fall by 43%. That confirms that councils are being hit harder than other parts of the public sector.
	Some councils, especially those in parts of the south, have been relatively unaffected by the cuts, and are able to continue as they were before. However, the Government must listen to local authorities—particularly in areas that face challenges and are experiencing high levels of deprivation—which, along with their parliamentary representatives, are warning that such large cuts are unsustainable, and pose the risk that councils will be unable to provide statutory services.
	While funding is being cut, demand for services continues to rise. More than 60% of Durham county council’s expenditure goes towards children and adults services, and the proportion is set to increase in the years to come. That is not because the council is being profligate, but because of demographic changes, an ageing population, and the fact that my area formerly had a tradition of heavy industry such as coal mining, shipbuilding and steelworks. The Government need to recognise that the legacy of that heavy industry continues to push up demand for adult social care for the elderly and disabled. Safeguarding Children is also experiencing greater demand: the number of complex cases requiring co-ordinated interventions by a number of services is increasing significantly.

Ian Mearns: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The levels of demand for children’s services, especially in complex cases and those involving a high level of need, has been growing exponentially in some parts of the north-east. In my borough of Gateshead, the number of youngsters taken into care has increased by nearly 50% in the last four years. It may be said that that is disgraceful, but if social services departments leave such children in situ with their families, the consequences are often tragic. Those increased demands need to be taken into account.

Grahame Morris: That is certainly true.
	I am not arguing that certain services should be protected while others should be subjected to cuts, but the structure of the settlement has had a particular impact on services such as libraries and transport, especially school transport. Some Members have said that there is general public satisfaction with the improvements in services, but school transport has been a huge problem for me. Many people in my surgeries have complained about having to contribute to the cost of a service that used to be provided by the local authority.
	There are issues around culture, planning and economic development. Vital services that the public rely on are going to have to be cut still further to accommodate great cuts as spending falls. I am very worried that when the Minister and Government Members in general analyse the costs of this, they do so in the manner of accountants, knowing the cost of everything, but not understanding the value of some of these things. The real cost of these cuts is not just to the bottom line of local government budgets, but to services and support that the most vulnerable in society rely upon. That cost is also felt in the impact on jobs and growth, which will stifle employment opportunities in our communities and exacerbate the existing north-south divide in terms of health, education and economic development. [Interruption.]
	In order for local authorities to continue their vital work, the Government must stop this relentless attack on local government. The communities that are hardest hit by the economic downturn are now being expected to shoulder the burden and pay for the failures of the coalition Government’s deficit reduction plan. [Interruption.]
	There are a number of key messages that I want to leave with the Minister. There are some particular things he could do, such as address issues to do with the new homes bonus and top-slicing. I urge him to reconsider his current approach and to bring forward proposals that would support all councils to protect the most vulnerable in society no matter where in the country they may be.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Some Members are getting rather excited, so let me explain that we have not imposed a 10-minute time limit and I do not wish to do so. I am sure everybody will work towards helping each other by speaking for no more than 10 minutes, and I am sure you, Mr Parish, will not get any more excited about this ruling. I am sure all who want to speak will be able to do so, and if there are any problems, we will impose a time limit.

Rory Stewart: It is very easy to feel that the debate about rural and urban funding is somehow trivial or unjustified. Those of us on the Government Benches who have been fighting on this topic for nearly two years often face scepticism from officials and slight scepticism from Ministers. The implication is almost that what rural areas are asking for—0.25% of funding to be shifted year by year—is either based on faulty statistics or will have no impact. I wish to challenge that.
	It perhaps feels from London as though the request we are making is very small. It feels like the tiny tip of a lever, but when the lever is 350 miles long and the fulcrum is right here in Westminster, that 0.25% makes an enormous difference, because rural areas are in an especially fragile position—more fragile than those in almost any other county in the world. This was, of course, the first country to industrialise, and the first country to develop a truly urban population. In the mid-18th century, a sixth of the entire population of Britain lived in London. As a result, this is not France; we do not have vigorous, rich rural communities and local democracies and huge local populations. We do not have, as they do in France, 10% of the total population working on the land. Instead, we have been struggling for a very long time.
	We must add to that the current perfect storm, which is to do with not simply the Minister’s portfolio, but what is happening to rural areas in health, where we are being significantly underfunded, in education, where we are being significantly underfunded, and in terms of our demography: we tend to have an older population, and we tend to face greater struggles with fuel poverty, with unaffordable housing, and with problems that other colleagues have raised to do with bus services. The Minister is dealing with a situation that is extremely dangerous, therefore.
	This 0.25% matters because rural areas are precious. They are precious and they are fragile, and they have never been so fragile. They are being depopulated; we can walk across the English and Scottish borders and see houses abandoned and see parishes that in 1850 had 2,500 people but now have just 300. In those valleys are the very last traces of our history and of our landscape, which we in this House do not wish to turn into a wilderness.
	It sounds like a very grand statement to come down to 0.25%. It sounds as if it is perhaps being a little petty to say that rural areas should not make this small demand just because they pay more in council tax, receive fewer services and earn less. But it is a demand that is very consistent with the traditions of my party, of this House and of this country. What I believe we all share in this House is the sense that rural areas should not be seen as marginal victims. Just because we mostly live in cities and just because 97% of the population tend to live in more densely packed areas than almost anywhere else in Europe, we should not patronise those areas.
	Eden district council is the most sparsely populated council area, containing the most sparsely populated parish in the whole of England. When we see the kinds of things that Gordon Nicolson, the wonderful leader of the council, or Councillor Kevin Beaty struggle with, we see that they what they are struggling with is not simply being victims, but the possibility of being the future of this country—somewhere we can be proud of, somewhere the Minister and everyone in this Chamber can visit, and somewhere where 9 million tourists a year come to see living Britain. They wish to see not a wilderness but a rich community of houses, schools and living people. On that quarter of 1%, I ask the Minister please to be generous.

Mary Glindon: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who made an eloquent case
	for rural communities. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing this debate, as it gives me the opportunity to detail for the Minister the key finance issues facing my local authority, North Tyneside council. I am glad the hon. Gentleman did acknowledge the similarities of the things experienced by rural communities and deprived urban areas such as those in the north-east. I also wish to support the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) in the case he made on behalf of the fire services. Our group received a presentation from our regional fire services earlier this week, where we saw the devastating effects the cuts are having and the fact that, again, it will be areas of deprivation that are put in more danger because of the cuts.
	The Association of North East Councils has found that, nationally, the north-east has suffered the biggest cuts and has experienced much higher reductions in spending power than the national average. That has been said before. In North Tyneside the spending power per household is the worst in Tyne and Wear, as at £2,048 per household it is £468 per household less than our best-funded north-east neighbour, Newcastle. Moreover, North Tyneside council will have to make efficiency savings of £20 million for next year’s budget, which equates to 11% of the net revenue budget. At the same time, it will see a £12 million reduction in the revenue support grant—a reduction of just under 20% for the year. Announcements made in the Government’s spending review mean a 10% cut to core funding for councils in 2015-16, but the Government are now proposing a further £l billion cut for the north-east. For my borough that means a 40% cut in revenue support grant over two years.
	The Government’s intention to protect council tax freeze grant might be good news in affluent areas that have higher council tax bases, but it is not in North Tyneside, especially as council tax support grant funding is being considerably reduced. I am not attempting to paint North Tyneside council as a whingeing council; on the contrary, the council has implemented savings over the first two years of the spending review totalling £32 million. By the end of the year, the efficiency savings will be £45 million. Furthermore, the council has implemented many of the saving ideas included in the Department for Communities and Local Government’s “50 ways to save” publication. Further cuts can only mean cuts to services, which will hit the most vulnerable in our communities hardest and will cost jobs in our region that we can ill afford to lose.
	Like so many councils across the country, North Tyneside is seeing the rise in demand for adult social care that has been mentioned by so many Members today. The fact that young people with complex needs and many older people are living longer is to be celebrated, but that means that councils have to spend more of their budgets on adult social care. The DCLG must work with other departments and organisations to find a sustainable solution for funding adult social care so that increased life expectancy equates with a good quality of life for all those with social care needs.
	The new homes bonus has benefited North Tyneside, providing specific funding to help the council’s economic growth priorities. However, the way in which the scheme is operated has resulted in the redistribution of funding from more deprived to less deprived areas of the country.
	The effect of that redistribution is that North Tyneside will lose about £1.6 million next year. Furthermore, the council is concerned about the recent technical consultation on the new homes bonus and regional growth fund to transfer 35% of the new homes bonus to our North East local enterprise partnership in two years’ time. Surely the Minister will agree that that goes against a core rationale of the new homes bonus scheme, which is to incentivise local authorities to encourage the building of new homes and to tackle long-term empty housing. That prompts a question for the Minister: where is the localism in making less money available for councils so that they have to make decisions on their spending priorities?
	North Tyneside has always been a good forward-looking council providing good levels of service across important areas, including social care and education. The council is not asking the Government for handouts but, like other councils in the north-east, in rural areas and in other urban areas, is simply asking for a level playing field on funding in these times of austerity.

Nick Harvey: It is a pleasure to support my neighbour, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who secured the debate, and to echo some of his points. I also want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who is not in his seat at the moment but who made a powerful speech, drawing on his many years in local government. It was completely impartial in being equally rude about everyone as he set about his exposition of local government and he made some good points.
	I am as committed as anyone on these Benches to the Government’s drive to get the deficit under control. It was inevitable that local government would play its part in the deep cuts that had to be made to public services in the course of the past three years. Local government has played its part; big cuts have been made. In my county, Devon, we have seen cuts to bus services, children’s services, libraries, social care and many others. As the polls to which other participants in the debate have referred are showing, we have just about got away with it. The public are still with it and are still expressing confidence in the services that local government is providing, but, looking at the funding settlement for this year and what that will mean for councils in the next three, I sincerely doubt that another poll taken in three years’ time would show anything like that satisfaction level. I believe that councils up and down the country, regardless of their political leadership and of whether they are in rural or urban areas, have set about driving down their costs, have done everything they plausibly can to secure better value for money and have struggled, as far as they are able, to do so without damaging front-line services. But we have got way past the point where they can be expected to do so again without its having a profound impact on front-line services. I simply do not think that the Government will get away with this if they go through with it on the scale they are currently planning.
	People have stomached, more or less, the austerity measures of the past three years because they have seen the grim economic picture that has made them necessary, but as more and more Government spokesmen get up and, rightly, talk up the fact that economic recovery is
	showing signs of getting under way—we would all hope that that continues and gains momentum over the next two or three years—it will become increasingly inexplicable to people that their public services are being eroded to nothing. I echo the comments made by others when I say that people come to my constituency surgery and say, “It is all very nice having a shiny bus pass, but it is not a lot of use if there isn’t a bus that I can catch.”
	Speaking personally, the road outside my house has now collapsed on both sides. There is a sheer drop. There is just about a car’s width that it is possible to drive on. I have asked the county council when it intends to repair it and I am told it will not be repaired for two years. If that is typical of what is going on, particularly in authorities that, like Devon, have vast expanses of highway to maintain, the public will not tolerate it, and neither should those who represent them. That reflects the dissatisfaction that we have heard from many Members during this debate.
	By 2015-16, Devon county council’s revenue support grant from Government will have been reduced by around 60% in just four financial years. It will have to make another £113 million of cuts in the next three years, on top of the £100 million of cuts that it has already made. We can talk about tough choices as much as we like, but we are going to see complete areas of public service ceasing altogether. I do not believe that the public understand, are ready for or are in any sense willing to put up with that.
	The situation for the district council in my area, North Devon district council, is just as bad. It will have experienced a 40% cut in the Government grant to its services, and that will mean that by 2015 the size of its budget will have come down by a third in cash terms since the start of this Parliament.
	All this suggests to me that although cuts across the board are absolutely necessary, the Department for Communities and Local Government is taking more than its fair share of the cuts, even in the grim scenario that we are all familiar with.
	But the main purpose of my contribution to this afternoon’s debate is to flag up in absolutely clear terms that the disparity between the treatment of rural and urban areas is simply no longer tolerable. It cannot be right that the grant support coming to people living in a rural area is 50% less per head than that going to people living in an urban area. That is £130 a year per head less grant support coming into rural areas than goes into urban areas. In consequence, people are paying £83 more on their council tax bill.
	The rural areas of England and Wales are the poorest in the country. That takes a bit of getting one’s head round, but it is a fact. The next-door district to mine, Torridge district council, has the lowest GDP per head of any district in the entire United Kingdom. People come to Devon and Cornwall in the summer; the sun is shining and they think those counties are affluent. They are not. Devon and Cornwall are the two poorest counties in the country.
	Now will somebody tell me why the people who earn the least in the country pay the highest council tax, get the least support from Government and get the thinnest and most hopeless level of public services back? It just is
	not right that public services in our area are so much thinner than they are in other areas. It is not right that there are so few social workers going out to deal with children. It is not right that there are so few buses. It is not right that I have had people moving into my constituency with disabled children who, about a year later, have said, “It is hopeless. It is impossible to bring up a disabled child in this county. We are moving back from where we came.” It has been going on for decades. It was hidden during the years when local government was getting bigger and services were growing, but it is all too horribly visible now, when everything is getting smaller. A number of us warned Ministers this spring, when they pushed their spending settlement through, that they needed to get back to the issue and sort it out before they came looking for our support again next year.

Graham Stuart: I congratulate my hon. Friend on a passionate and well informed speech and on his becoming a chairman of the rural fair share campaign. Does he remember that beautiful summer of 2012, when the Government looked again at rural areas and decided that sparsity should get greater weighting, and then at the end of a year damped it all away and now propose to freeze that injustice, that inequity, all the way to 2020? It cannot be tolerated.

Nick Harvey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I do remember the Department taking the issue away and coming up with a partial solution. It was going to give greater weight to the sparsity factor. I thought that was a welcome sign. I would not have expected that to happen under a Labour Government, but I was delighted that when the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats formed a Government together, the Department for Communities and Local Government finally had a look at the issue and came up with a workable solution.
	What then happened is that the urban lobby beat a path to the Department’s door and said, “Up with this we will not put.” In its place came something called damping. In my experience, damping was meant to damp the effect of a change that was being made. It was, in a sense, a transitional relief so that the adjustment would be made in stages, but the difference that damping has made in these circumstances is that it has completely reversed the effect of what the Department had done and made it ever so slightly worse.
	Time is running out. There are a couple of months left before we see the settlement for next year. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton explaining the demand of the campaign—that by 2020 we want to have reduced the funding gap from 50% to 40%. Politics is a team game, so I am playing along with the team. I think that is horribly under-ambitious. The Government should sort the whole bleeding thing out straight away, but I am playing a team game.
	To conclude, the poorest people are paying the highest council tax, getting the least support from Government and getting the thinnest service. It is not right. Do not ask me to vote for it again in the Division Lobby next spring.

Daniel Kawczynski: I remember clearly in 2004 when Carolyn Downs, the then chief executive of Shropshire council, presided
	over an increase in council tax of 16.6% when the council was controlled by Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Carolyn Downs has gone on to be chief executive of the Local Government Association, but when she was the chief executive of the council her salary was £160,000. I make that point at the outset because I feel strongly that we need to get back to a system in local government in which there is close scrutiny and checks of individuals’ salaries. A salary of £160,000 for chief executives was unacceptable. There was a massive number of managers involved, and I would go so far as to say that there was a certain amount of empire building. We have to get back to ensuring that the money spent goes directly on providing services.
	I am extremely pleased that the Secretary of State, the Department and the Minister have encouraged councils to freeze their council tax and to try to reduce the bloated bureaucracy and excess management in local government. Now we are implementing a certain number of cuts, but when we are back to full prosperity, the economy is growing and the country is doing well, I hope we will not go back, having the comfort of economic prosperity, to the bad old days as was the case under Labour, when money was poured into local councils without some form of evaluation and critique of how that money is spent and without ensuring that councils are run like efficient businesses, as other sectors of the economy must be.

Mike Thornton: I am surprised that my hon. Friend implies that local councils are over-bureaucratic. I know that I am new to the House, but before that I was a councillor in my borough, where I found that everything run far more efficiently, far more quickly and far less costly than everything run around here. If the Minister would like to visit Eastleigh borough council to see how to run something efficiently, he would be extremely welcome. Perhaps we should return business rates to the control of local district councils, where the money would be used far more efficiently, effectively and quickly than it would if it was left to bob back and forth to London.

Daniel Kawczynski: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he leads me succinctly to my next point, which has already been made. An ICM survey has revealed today that six out of 10 people think services are better now than they were in 2008. That raises the following question: how is it possible that the majority of people in the United Kingdom think that services are better today than they were five years ago, when massive amounts of funding were going to local government? I will outline the situation in Shropshire later in my speech, but we must not forget that important survey finding.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing the debate and agree with him wholeheartedly. I would like the Minister to take away our message that more needs to be given to rural authorities. The cost of providing services is massively greater in rural areas than it is in cities and inner-city areas. I have made that point repeatedly to the Prime Minister, because it is something I am passionate about.
	My No. 1 pledge to my constituents at the last general election was to try to get the funding formula for education provision changed. Shrewsbury receives
	£4,200 per child each year for their schooling. Other parts of the country get £7,000, £8,000 or £9,000. Of course we understand that children in very deprived inner-city areas might need a little more than we get in Shrewsbury, but not double. It is completely unacceptable in this day and age to have such discrimination against children in one part of the country. They are receiving less than half what children in other parts get. There are schools in my constituency that have nothing like the facilities that schools in inner-city areas have. There are leaking roofs, problems with insulation and all sorts of other problems, which I think is absolutely disgraceful. I will not stop until the funding mechanism is changed and children in Shrewsbury get a fairer deal.
	I pay tribute to the leader of Shropshire council, Mr Keith Barrow, who has managed to grapple with the massive cuts imposed by central Government. He has had to cut £87 million from spending, and there are more cuts to come, but he has done so by cutting waste, reducing the number of senior managers and reducing salaries. All that has been done while council tax has been frozen, which is an extraordinary accomplishment. I receive very few letters from constituents complaining about local council services. Actually, as with the national opinion poll, people in Shrewsbury are rather pleased with local services and understand the difficult situation the council is in.
	The point I want to make most strongly to the Minister is one that the leader of my council has told me. It is now starting to sell assets in order to reduce the massive debts to the Government that were racked up under Labour. A large percentage of the council’s expenditure goes on servicing those debts. At the moment, if a council wishes to reduce some of its debts to the Government, it will be financially penalised by the Treasury, because it invokes certain clauses on early repayment, just as paying off a mortgage early incurs certain financial penalties. I think that is wrong. The Minister has to look at the issue and negotiate with the Treasury. If a local council is attempting to reduce its historic debt and pay it off slightly earlier by making difficult decisions on sales and streamlining various services, it is very important that the Minister does everything possible to encourage the council by helping it negotiate with the Treasury on those early payments.
	I would also like to pay tribute to Helen Ball, the chief executive of Shrewsbury town council, and Peter Nutting, who has run the council extremely well for many years.
	Let us not forget rural broadband. I hope the Minister will talk about what additional support is being given to rural broadband, which is so important to so many of our constituents in outlying rural villages.
	I reiterate the point that has been made about the importance of helping rural communities with large numbers of senior citizens. Shrewsbury has been voted as one of the most attractive towns to live in. It is in the top 10 in England and is one of the most attractive towns for senior citizens to retire to. Let us not forget the additional expenditure required for areas with a large number of senior citizens.
	Shropshire council and Telford council stand side by side. I hope the Minister will explain what incentives—what carrots and sticks—he is using to make sure that local neighbouring councils pool resources. The possibility of a shared chief executive has been mentioned. It is vital
	that the Department does more to encourage those two Shropshire councils to pool their resources and make cost savings and even to merge, if necessary.
	Finally, on fire service provision, the Minister has kindly agreed to meet the local Shropshire fire authority. It has complained about the number of cuts it has had to go through and a fire engine is at threat in Shrewsbury. I hope the Minister will look kindly on us when we go to see him about the very important requirement to save that fire engine.

David Ruffley: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and the rural fair share group and our chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), who has been the spiritual leader of our campaign to draw Ministers’ attention to the injustice—that is not too strong a word—that many rural district councils feel about the settlements over the past two years, particularly the freezing until 2020 of our iniquitous position.
	I want to pay tribute to one particular rural district council in my constituency, namely Mid Suffolk district council. It is a small district council, but under the exemplary leadership of Councillor Derrick Haley from Thurston it has done a lot of what the Government want. It is a Conservative-led council—not that that is a particularly important thing to note—and it has been following the strictures set by the Secretary of State and the Minister. In particular, in less than two years it has effected a collaboration with the neighbouring Babergh district council, so the two councils are still sovereign councils but they operate as a single delivery organisation.
	I will give some remarkable statistics on the efficiency savings that Ministers have rightly demanded of Mid Suffolk district council. It is not one of those district councils that is sitting on piles of reserves. The Audit Commission’s financial ratio tools show that the council’s usable reserve levels, compared with gross expenditure, are under 10%. That compares favourably with the district council and statistical nearest neighbour average of nearly 25%.
	One result of the work that has been done by Councillor Haley, the chief executive, Ms Charlie Adan, and the rest of the council is that the management headcount is down by 50%, with further reductions projected. There is now one chief executive for two councils, rather than two. There has been a comprehensive review of all other staff and there has been an 11.2% reduction in the staff headcount. There has been a 9% annual net revenue saving. Solely through collaboration with the neighbouring council, Mid Suffolk district council took £1.3 million out of what was already quite a small budget in 2012-13, which is more than was anticipated in its business case. Another £1.3 million of savings is anticipated in 2013-14. That might rise to £1.6 million.
	The target of the rural fair share campaign is to reduce the rural penalty from 50% to 40%. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) say in his excellent speech that that might even be a little complacent. I am with him in spirit. I look forward to his leadership as the new chairman of the group.
	I want to underline an important point that has been made by other colleagues in this well-informed debate. In the 2013-14 settlement, the impact of the sparsity element was approximately doubled. That good news offered a huge ray of hope, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness said in an intervention. Mid Suffolk district council was pleased with the news. However, nearly all the changes to the formula for that financial year were damped away. The calculation that I have seen is that three quarters of the gains that rural councils expected from that sparsity change were damped away. To put some numbers on that, damping cost Mid Suffolk district council almost £800,000, which amounted to 16% of the council’s grant. I wonder how the Minister can justify that.
	The proposal to top-slice a significant sum of the new homes bonus that would have gone to district councils and put it into the single local growth fund for the LEPs will have a severe impact on the medium-term financial plans of Mid Suffolk district council. The inclusion of the NHB in the new growth fund will potentially damage the growth prospects in two-tier areas such as mine.
	I understand why the NHB is being vired over to the LEPs: it is meant to facilitate better collaboration between the local authorities in LEP areas. However, there is a justified view that that amounts to a penalty on district councils. Why so? The Government believe that it will reward LEPs in areas where authorities have delivered housing increases. However, it is not easy to see how the LEPs add much value to increased house building, because that is what councils do. Mid Suffolk district council is being bold and saying that new houses are needed in its area instead of acting in a nimby-like fashion. It seems to me that the LEPs are being rewarded with the power to redistribute income that they have not had much to do with generating through the building of more homes.
	Mid Suffolk district council’s view, with which I agree, is that if the LEPs are to be given that power, as is proposed, we should measure their productivity to work out what they actually do in exchange. As far as I can see, there is no measure of productivity at all except the number of new houses and the amount of money that will be generated through the new homes bonus, which is what councils do.
	Furthermore, it is important to understand that if the money is given to the LEPs—in my case, the LEP covers the whole of Norfolk and Suffolk—it will work against localism, which should surely dictate that the rewards go to Mid Suffolk district council for achieving more house building. They should not be put into a pot for the whole of Norfolk and Suffolk for the LEP to do with as it sees fit.
	Mid Suffolk district council is innovative and has helped to deliver the astonishing and heartening statistic in the BBC-ICM poll published last night, which is that in the case of the majority of services—potholes and services for old people are the exception—six out of 10 of our fellow citizens believe that services have got better in the past five years, notwithstanding the fact that austerity started to kick in in 2009 and accelerated from May 2010.

Andy Sawford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Ruffley: I am just coming to the end of my remarks, so I will continue if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
	That amazing result is being delivered by go-ahead, innovative councils under great leadership, such as Mid Suffolk district council. On top of my remarks on the new homes bonus and my plea for the Minister to look again at the effect of damping, through which Ministers gave to rural district councils with one hand and took away with the other, I end with a final plea. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) rehearsed a statistic that those of us in the rural fair share campaign know off by heart—that a 0.25% shift in the allocation would go a long way towards closing the rural penalty. I particularly look forward to the Minister’s answer to why that 0.25% out of a very large budget cannot be delivered to rural shire district councils, particularly those such as Mid Suffolk.

Graham Stuart: It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. I apologise for my late appearance. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who secured it and, I know, led it off ably. I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), although I should say to him that I have not ceased my duties as a chairman of the rural fair share campaign but have been joined by another co-chair, along with the hon. Member for Workington (Sir Tony Cunningham). It is a full, cross-party campaign recognising the inequity in funding.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) put his finger on the core point in his passionate speech. The lowest incomes are found in rural areas, so there is a social justice argument along with the data that we rightly focus on. That social justice argument is hard to rebut, and Ministers in successive Governments have hidden behind an obfuscation of numbers and data. As he said, the simple truth is that people on lower incomes are paying a higher level of tax to get a much thinner—I liked that phrase—level of services.

Daniel Kawczynski: My hon. Friend speaks about his group on rural services being all-party. I hope there are more Labour Members in his caucus than there are in the Chamber today.

Graham Stuart: My aim, along with my co-chairmen, is and always has been to try not to have a Labour-urban versus Tory/Lib Dem-rural battle—although that is difficult to avoid—but rather to say that we will get our arguments right. Perhaps that explains the modesty of our requests—too modest, perhaps—but our aim has always been to ensure that a fair-minded Labour Member of Parliament who does not represent a rural area would see the weight of the argument. Having come into politics, as we all do, to try to make a fairer and better society, people should see that we are not making a special, partial interest, but a case grounded in facts that will lead to a more just outcome.

Karl Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that deprivation levels in the city of Hull are higher than those in his constituency,
	and that per head of population Hull suffers four times as much as his constituency, which—if we are honest—is pretty well-off?

Graham Stuart: Average earnings in rural areas are lower, not higher. It is a myth; there is no rural idyll. In truth, the areas around Withernsea, Patrington and other villages contain people on similarly low incomes to those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency in east Hull, but who spend a much higher percentage of their income on transport. They are suffering too, and local government funding starts from a much lower base. Is the population more or less resilient? In my constituency, the population in rural areas—in marked contrast to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—is much older. There are vulnerable elderly people on low incomes who are remote and without access, and who have a council with massively less funding to deliver services.
	In no way do I seek to suggest there are not serious social problems in east Hull, or that such problems could be of a different character to those faced by people in Beverley and Holderness. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon thinks we were too modest in our request, but we are saying that the rural penalty of 50% more per head going to urban areas than goes to an older population with lower incomes in areas where services are more expensive to deliver is just not right.
	I have always said that if someone can show me the evidence base that such a system is just, I would not, on behalf of my constituents, love it, but I would hear the case. However, no one, including Ministers in this Government and the previous one, has ever sought to do that because there is no justification for it. If we look at the cost of emptying the bins, supporting domiciliary care for the elderly population and so on, current differences between services that are comparatively well funded in Hull and less so in my patch cannot be justified. However, the point is to avoid a battle or denial of the genuine issues that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) faces in his constituency, and to seek to move to a more needs-based system, grounded on people’s real lives, rather than an argument based on a high ideological point.
	I have probably already spoken for half the time I am allowed, and I shall seek not to be like some hon. Members who ignore strictures from the Chair and carry on regardless. I know that the person in the Chair will not allow such a thing to happen. However, I make no apology for repeating that on average, rural residents earn less than those in cities, and they pay council tax that is £70 or £80 higher per head—if we add up the people in each household who pay council tax, it is significantly more, yet urban areas receive Government grants that are 50% higher than those in the countryside.
	Last year I led a delegation of rural MPs to meet the Prime Minister. We spoke to him and were delighted. There was no transformation, but perhaps hon. Members remember the summer—the beautiful summer of 2012 with the Olympics, good will; London Underground staff were nice. It was an astonishing and remarkable period. The capital was covered in magic dust. It was lovely. At that time, the Government suggested that they recognised rural sparsity. They did not go all the way we had hoped, but there was a movement in the right direction after years of it being skewed the other way.
	Colleagues have said that it was damped away, but it was not damped away—it was stuck in a deep freeze. Damping is a transition mechanism. I would like the Minister to justify the fact that a transition mechanism has been used to shove an inequity that the Government recognise into the deep freeze.

Stephen Phillips: For seven years.

Graham Stuart: As my hon. Friend says, they have shoved it into the deep freeze for seven years, to 2020. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have been led to believe that there is no fundamental injustice, which they repeat, but the Government recognise the injustice. Perhaps it was just the magic dust, but they saw the injustice last summer. By Christmas—poof!—it had gone. Remarkable! They damped it away, which is inexcusable and cannot be defended.
	That is why I am delighted to see this brave and excellent Minister in the Chamber, a man who effortlessly survives a reshuffle, who grows in power and influence, and who works for an even wiser and more sagacious man than he—the Secretary of State. It is those two honest fighters for truth and decency in whom I put my trust, almost entirely. There is no need to nudge such fine people, but if a nudge were required, I can tell my hon. Friend that, as far as my office knows, 115 constituencies have parliamentary petitions calling for a 20% reduction in the rural penalty from 50% to 40%. Many colleagues have spoken today, but many who are not in the Chamber are strongly onside with that campaign. No nudges whatever are necessary to Ministers such as this one. However, I say to him that the patience, even of the most trusting and loyal people such as the hon. Members to whom I am referring, can know a limit. We do not want it tested. We want the Government to do what they said they would do last summer, when the magic dust reigned. Can we return to that?
	The Minister smiles, and I trust in him to do the right thing. We cannot allow the freezing of that injustice and inequity until 2020. Having a slow unwinding of a situation that the Government have recognised is wrong will not undermine the move to business rates retention. I therefore hope he does not repeat the suggestion that it will.
	I have one final request of the Minister before the end of my speech—I have not quite had my 10 minutes. Will he produce an analysis of the rural/urban funding split? The Rural Services Network, which we work with, has worked hard attending meeting after meeting. The Minister has been in meetings in which he has asked civil servants to produce such an analysis, but for some unknown reason it never quite comes out. I would like to ensure that, whatever the Government decide, we are at least technically on the same page and can agree on where the money goes, as in the percentage that goes here or there and the amount per head, using whatever classification he wants, as long as it is on a rural/urban split. So far, we have heard the Government say, “We don’t split it like that. We don’t recognise your figures.” We ask, “Are you saying that our numbers are not true?”, and the Government say, “We don’t split it like that,” which is nonsense. We now have such experienced and first-class
	Ministers in the Department that we can expect action. I want to ensure that we are on the same page technically, then we can have the political argument on the right thing to do. All hon. Members, whichever constituency we represent, whether it is Kingston upon Hull East or Beverley and Holderness, want a just settlement that ensures we have decent local services and that supports people, not least those with least.

Stephen Phillips: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), not only because he made a powerful speech, but because he is the co-chairman of the rural fair share campaign. I am sorry that he is still co-chairman: I had hoped that by now he would have lost his job. I say that not because he does not do a great job, but because I too remember the magic of last summer—the sun shining in the sky, the London Olympics, and the promises from the Government and their recognition that communities such as the one I represent have had a raw deal for far too long. Public services in Lincolnshire and many other shire counties cost at least as much, if not more, to run than they do in urban areas, but urban areas receive this fantastic extra grant from the Government of 50% more per head, while those on the lowest incomes can be found in the rural communities we represent.
	Like every other MP with a rural constituency who has spoken, I tell the Minister that we have to do something about this. It does not matter who has been in government, this injustice has gone on for far too long. Our constituents do not deserve the thin services that the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) mentioned, any more than constituents in urban areas deserve them. We deserve precisely the same public services and I therefore support in full the campaign that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are running and to which I have signed up. It is time that this injustice was removed.
	I have nothing new to say to the Minister other than what has already been said. Every hon. Member has recognised that we are in difficult financial times—times of austerity—and has taken solace from the fact that the vast sums of money that were poured into local government evidently did not deliver brilliant public services because the removal of those sums, as we now know from the BBC/ICM poll today, has not made people dissatisfied with the local public services they receive. In those circumstances, in which local councils—especially in rural areas—have made the sacrifices, efficiencies and economies that they were asked to make, is it really too much to ask the Government to give them the settlements that they deserve year on year so that they can deliver the public services that constituents who live in rural communities deserve?
	I venture to suggest to the Minister, sagacious as he is—

Robin Walker: Good-looking!

Graham Stuart: Svelte!

Stephen Phillips: Indeed, and the Minister is well able to survive a reshuffle, as we now know. I could praise him more, and if it would get us what we want I would gladly do so. I have nothing new to say to him, because the figures are available. These are the poorest communities
	in the country and they get the roughest deal. On average they pay £75 more per head in council tax than anywhere else. The Minister has to deal with this. He has heard the strength of feeling on both sides of the House—this is a cross-party campaign, as he knows.
	Patience is wearing thin. If the Minister comes to the House next year with a settlement that is fundamentally unfair for rural communities, such as those in North Kesteven district council and in a small part of South Kesteven, and if the funding settlement next year penalises rural communities again, which are already hit hard by the cost of fuel given the amount of travel that people in them have to do, he will not have an easy ride. I very much doubt that he will even find support. Today he needs to stand at the Dispatch Box and tell the House that the magic dust of the summer of 2012 has miraculously been found again and that the damping that has been used to rob Peter to pay Paul, when we were promised so much last year, will be addressed and not entrenched in the way that the Government currently suggest for the next seven years.

Robin Walker: It is a pleasure to follow two such eloquent speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) and for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), touched by the very magic dust that they invoked in making their case so strongly. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing this debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
	The topic of how we fund our local authorities may sometimes seem arcane—a matter for policy wonks or political theorists—but as earlier contributions to the debate have shown, it is in fact intensely practical, with real and direct implications for services in all our constituencies. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) for making such a strong case in principle for this small amount of funding that could make a very big difference in rural areas.
	In debating this subject, we touch on the very machinery of the country and the whole range of services on which our electorates depend. I do not make the case for endlessly increasing local government funding, as perhaps some Opposition Members have tended to do. My constituents are clear in the belief that local government needs to bear its share of the burden in reducing the deficit and restoring our economic credibility, which was so damaged under the previous Labour Government.
	A number of colleagues have mentioned the BBC survey, which shows clearly that it is possible to deliver improved services in difficult circumstances if we work hard at it, something that both Worcester city council and Worcestershire county council have managed to do in the past few years. In recent surveys my association has been conducting across Worcester, the vast majority of my constituents believe that local councils can do more to reduce waste and improve efficiency. Even a substantial majority of those who assign themselves as Labour voters agree with that statement.
	What I will make the case for is fairer funding. Each area should get its fair share and should have the best opportunity to deliver services fairly. I am not making the case for each area to pay the same council tax, but it
	is noticeable that in general, as many colleagues have pointed out, the very rural authorities that are getting funded less are on average paying higher levels of local taxation than urban authorities. Surely it should be a matter for local decision makers to decide what should happen with regard to council tax and to bear in mind the wishes of the people who elect them.
	Worcestershire county council has done an admirable job of keeping council tax frozen for a number of years, but it is noticeable that our council tax payers bear a higher share of the burden of the cost of vital public services in our part of the world than they do in urban authorities elsewhere in the west midlands. Worcester city council has made millions of pounds of savings in the past couple of years, but it fears that further cuts will be necessary in the years ahead as a result of not getting a fair share of funding.
	I want both our councils to have the best chance of keeping council tax frozen for as long as possible, but to do so we need to ensure that we are getting our fair share of funding from Westminster. I want councils such as Worcestershire to be able to continue to have no library or Sure Start centre closures because they have managed things properly, and to receive fair funding from the Government. As others have already set out, as it currently stands the local government funding formula is not fair and it disadvantages rural areas. The huge gap—on average approximately 50% between rural areas and purely urban areas—is shocking and unjustifiable.
	As a member for a city seat it may seem strange that I should be concerned about this, but Worcester, like many county towns, suffers a double penalty by being an urban district in a rural county authority. The vast majority of our funding is granted on the basis of the county unit, with little or no account taken of the many specific urban problems we face. Within Worcester, there are super output areas in the top percentile of deprived wards in the country, yet the overall funding that our local authority receives reflects what might be expected for a green and leafy prosperous county. As other Members have pointed out, rural does not necessarily equate to prosperous.
	Worse, and as other colleagues have pointed out, there are additional pressures on all rural authorities, with extra travel costs for almost every part of local government, smaller units covering wider areas and particular challenges for social care. Where these costs are shared among all areas of a county, it is not surprising that the urban core can sometimes miss out. I therefore strongly support a better deal for rural areas and believe it is in the interests of all my urban constituents for the challenges of rural sparsity to be better recognised in the funding system. The local government funding formula is by no means unique in disadvantaging rural areas, as other formulae in education and health do the same. Unfortunately, these effects do not exist in isolation for each individual department, but have a cumulative impact.
	In other debates, I have regularly made the case for fundamental reforms to the school funding formula, and I am grateful for the support of both Liberal Democrat and Conservative colleagues. I shall continue to make the case, but as the majority of funding for schools still passes through local authorities, this is not irrelevant to today’s debate. In fact, the growth of academies and the diminution of local authorities’ role
	in allocating school funding has created additional pressures as lower funded local education authorities struggle to achieve the same economies of scale as they once did.
	The so-called education service grant, or the withdrawal of funding from local authorities for the funding of academies, has placed an extra burden on local education authorities in the worse-funded areas, as it has been withdrawn at a national average rate while these areas tend to receive much lower than national average funding. In Worcestershire’s case, this means that we are giving £116 back to the Treasury for every academy pupil, even though the actual funding that it would have spent in maintained schools was £101. Now is not the time for me to fulminate against the outrageous £1,100 per pupil funding gap between pupils in Worcestershire and in neighbouring Birmingham.

Daniel Kawczynski: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the extraordinary role he has played in this Parliament in setting out the all-party caucus for campaigning on changing the funding mechanism. This change is the No. 1 pledge I have given to my constituents. For the record, I would like to thank my hon. Friend, and I am sure that other hon. Friends would want to do so, too.

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend is extremely generous. I believe this campaign has strong support across the Back Benches. It is an issue that we can take forward; we must see real progress made on it. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comment, but it is, of course, a team effort in which many others have played their part.
	In Worcestershire as in many other counties, the education department shares staff and resources with the broader children’s services area, so wherever education funding is under pressure, it places additional pressure on other aspects of children’s services, including looked-after children and safeguarding—issues raised by a number of Opposition Members. As a long-standing supporter of the f40 campaign and having met Ministers many times to discuss it, I know that reform of the school funding formula is on the way and I have every confidence that we will eventually get a fairer deal, but we need to learn the lessons of what seems to have gone wrong with local government funding and not repeat the same mistakes.
	It appears that in this case, the Government set out to correct some of the imbalance in funding for rural local authorities, but then introduced a damping mechanism that outweighed the impact of the change—effectively, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness said, putting the whole thing into the deep freeze rather than simply damping it. In effect, a funding reform designed to move things in a fairer direction has been so watered down as to make the problem worse. That cannot be allowed to happen when it comes to school funding, and it should not be allowed to happen to the wider CLG funding for local authorities.

Rory Stewart: Would my hon. Friend touch, perhaps briefly, on health funding, which is one of the other great examples of this problem?

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is exactly the problem I was about to move on to. As I mentioned earlier, health funding is another area of major concern. Rural areas tend to have higher numbers
	of elderly people and a higher life expectancy than the major cities. As so much health funding is allocated according to life expectancy and targeted towards areas of high perceived deprivation, it means that the population of big cities is generally much better funded than that of rural areas.
	With an ageing population and more people living with long-term conditions that require regular treatment, this creates enormous pressure on all rural health services, particularly on community health services. Worcestershire as a whole gets lower health funding per person than do more urban areas of the west midlands, but it has an older population, placing greater demands on our health service. Shifting the balance of health funding from mortality to morbidity would help to address this, as would having a more activity-based formula for community health. In health as in education, however, the local structures do not exist in isolation from local government. There are close links between the health and the social care systems, while pressures on both the acute and the community health systems create additional pressure on local authority-run social care. The fact that we are underfunded for health means that our underfunding for social care is a more serious challenge for our local authority.

Graham Stuart: If there is an injustice that is greater than in education or local government, it is an injustice in health. Is my hon. Friend aware of the work of Professor Sheena Asthana, who looked at Mid Staffs and other hospitals with high mortality rates and saw a correlation between the hospitals with high mortality rates and the populations they serve, which are typically older, rural and funded on an inequitable basis?

Robin Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which clearly illustrates the problems we face.
	I hope that I have shown that the problems of local government funding do not exist in isolation. The Government should strive to provide fairer funding, not just through the CLG budget but through health, education and no doubt many other budgets. We need to make sure that corrections and changes to formulae are delivered swiftly so as to correct the long-standing problems and not water them down so as to make those problems worse.
	What else could we do to improve the situation? Our councils, whether they be city councils such as Worcester or great county councils, did not grow up as organs of central government. As my noble Friend Lord Heseltine pointed out in his “No stone unturned” review, the great cities of England were not grown through the diktat of Westminster or the spending of Whitehall. The councils that directed their growth and success raised their own funds locally, invested locally and built up services according to the demands of their own local constituents. We need to rebuild some of that independence and self-reliance. Although there was a great deal with which I disagreed in the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who chairs the Communities and Local Government Select Committee, this is one area on which I think we can agree.
	This is not something that can be done overnight, and there would be significant risks in allowing some areas to raise taxes much higher than others, but it
	should be a stated aim of the Government to provide councils with more of their own resources over time and to give them greater opportunities to raise local funding. Such has been the growth in responsibilities of local government over the decades that there is little chance of it ever returning to being entirely self-funded, but there is a role for Westminster in re-allocating funding from the richest areas of the country to the more needy, including rural areas. Increasing the proportion of local government funding that is in the control of councils will give them greater flexibility to manage the challenges they face and to deliver localism.
	Early policies of the coalition, such as the new homes bonus and the delegation of powers over business rates relief, showed some promise. As Lord Heseltine suggested, the creation of a challenge fund, or single funding pot, also offers some prospect of more locally driven projects. However, I fear that there is a conflict between the desire to empower local enterprise partnerships and enable them to bid for local funding, and the demands of our councils. I urge the Minister to give careful consideration to what has been said about the reallocation of money from planning authorities to LEPS under the new homes bonus scheme.
	I believe that in the case of funding for local authorities, as in those of education and health, our Government can do more to ensure that money is allocated fairly. I commend and support the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness for a rural fair share, and I remind the Government that fairer funding for rural areas affects not just rural constituencies, but county towns such as the one that I am proud to represent.

Julian Huppert: It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). As a former county councillor and, now, a vice-president of the Local Government Association, I care deeply about local government, which provides essential services that many people use every day. I always find it strange that the Home Office and the Foreign Office are seen as the best and most important Departments although most people—hopefully—have very little interaction with them and their work, whereas people interact almost daily with the Departments for Communities and Local Government and for Transport.
	There are clearly financial problems throughout the country, and there are places where local government spending is inefficient. The same is true of central Government spending, and of spending everywhere else. Improvements could certainly be made. In general, however, local government provides an excellent service, cheaply, affordably and very well.
	Is there fat that could be trimmed from local government? Sure—but there is only a certain amount of fat, and many councils have run out of it. That is largely because councils are funded at different levels. Councils such as Cambridge city council in my constituency, which has received low funding for many years—the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) will be well aware of that, having been a member of the council himself—have trimmed off fat again and again. What is left is muscle and bone, and we are already cutting into that. Cambridge city council faces a cash-terms cut of
	almost 15% in 2015-16. That figure is much higher than the national average, and it obviously hits residents’ expectations: 15% is a huge amount of muscle and bone to cut off.
	Cambridgeshire county council, on which I used to serve, is also very hard hit. Its 2013-14 settlement funding assessment has been reduced by 20.9%, which is the third highest county council figure in the country. That has put the council in a very difficult position, which I accept is slightly worsened by the £33 million that it is to be paid in settlement of a dispute about the guided busway. The busway scheme was rammed through by Conservative and Labour councillors—but that is another story.
	We have a particular problem in Cambridge, because the Department for Communities and Local Government is using figures from the Office for National Statistics to work out how many people there are in Cambridge. That would normally appear to be a good thing, because we normally trust the ONS. However, the ONS has previously got the figure for the population of Cambridge completely and utterly wrong. For the last census, in 2011, it estimated that the population had shrunk by 5,000 in the last 10 years. We said that it had grown by 15,000, and the census proved that the council was correct: Cambridge had, in fact, grown. Anyone who has been there lately will have seen all the new houses and flats being built. It is absurd to suggest that Cambridge is shrinking.
	We won that argument, and the census figures have been used. However, the ONS is still forecasting that Cambridge will “continue to shrink” over the next 10 years, by about 5,000 people. The fact is that we have accelerating growth: we have many, many more houses, and we expect to see even more than 15,000.
	This is a huge problem, because every year the ONS figures, which the Department is using—and I can understand why—put a 2% gap between the number of people for which the Department is funding us and the number of people who are actually there. That does not take account of the fact that new growth costs much more money, and the money never arrives ahead of time. Moreover, it comes on top of the existing financial constraint caused by the Department’s settlement. The Communities Secretary is apparently over-eager to cut his own expenditure, which is very generous to other Departments but comes at great cost to local government.
	There are also constraints governing what local government can raise separately. Council tax is an awfully designed tax. It is deeply regressive: the highest payers pay only three times more than the lowest payers, and the tax shot up massively under the last Government. I do not like council tax. It was encouraging to hear comments in favour of our proposal to move towards a fairer local income-based tax and a mansion tax, but while council tax remains it has to be set at a level that is fit for purpose. That has to be supported by central Government.
	The rhetoric of a council tax freeze is great. The first year the Government did that, the equivalent money was provided from central Government to cover the difference that year and for the future. So far so good—but each other year that extra funding has not been made available for councils, so many of them could not take the hit to their long-term budget of a council tax freeze.
	Of course, controlling council tax increases by percentages misses the fact that different councils charge different amounts: 1% of a low-tax district council is far less than 1% of a well-funded top-tier council. The Minister described councils as democracy-dodging and trying to undercut democracy if they increase their council tax by just under the 2% limit. That is complete rubbish. How can it be undemocratic for elected officials to operate within the powers made available to them? What is undemocratic is to cut local government funding from the centre and simultaneously constrain what can be raised locally so that elected councils are forced increasingly into a place where all they can do is the statutory responsibilities—they are not free to do more.
	I support the LGA’s calls for greater local autonomy to allow local authorities to help secure the financial stability and sustainability of local government. I hope we can explore this further given the Government’s commitment to localism, so we have local decision-making to make communities the masters of their own economic destinies, as the Deputy Prime Minister rightly said.
	I welcome the city deal championed by the Deputy Prime Minister. The greater Cambridge city deal is well under development, and assuming the Government do the right thing and agree it, it will be a very good thing for the area. We have three very different councils coming together collaboratively to secure the future of one of Europe’s greatest hi-tech clusters, with 1,600 companies and 56,000 direct jobs in hi-tech and revenues of £13 billion. That will enable us to provide the sustainable infrastructure and the affordable housing we so desperately need to avoid stifling our own success. It will be a huge step forward. It will make it easier for the three councils to work together—although, frankly, I think a single council for the area would probably be a better way forward, but that is not on the cards right now.
	The city deal is great, but there is a slight risk to it if the Government go ahead with proposals to top-slice the new homes bonus by £400 million from the councils that were expecting it and had budgeted for it. They were not expecting it to be transferred to local economic partnerships, who were not anticipating it. In our case, the LEP has written to the Communities Secretary to ask for the new homes bonus to be given to the councils, as expected. I hope the Government will agree that if the LEP says the money should be given to the councils, that is clearly right.
	We also have issues with housing. In Cambridge we are building a lot more affordable housing at a great rate and some of the first new council homes for a very long time since the rules were relaxed. It is not so easy to build those houses, however. It is great that we can spend right-to-buy money on replacement housing. That should always have been the case. Right to buy was fine, but we have to build replacement homes and Governments did not do that.
	The money that there is now is tied up with red tape, however. It can be used to cover only a third of the cost of the replacement, so two-thirds match funding has to be found from somewhere. That two-thirds cannot include any other grant money, however, such as from the Homes and Communities Agency. The money also has to be spent within three years or it goes back to the
	Government, and the Treasury’s refusal to lift the borrowing cap makes it very hard for councils to spend the money to build the houses. That must be addressed.
	There is a further problem with the change in the target rent system. Cambridge took on a debt from the Treasury of many millions of pounds on the basis that it would be able to repay it from the rent. Cambridge had been debt-free and was having to pay a huge amount of, in effect, tax from council tenants in Cambridge to support council housing in the rest of the country. We made a deal with the Government based on the idea that we would move average rents towards the target rents. The Government are now threatening to freeze that process. When a house is empty we have been raising the rent to the target level, as it should be assuming the energy standards are all right. If that is frozen, different rents will be charged for identical neighbouring council houses when new people move into them. That simply does not make sense on a practical level and it would also cost the council and the housing account £22 million over the period of the business plan. More importantly, it breaks the faith that existed. This debt was taken on with an understanding of what the rules would be. If the Government are going to change those rules, it is very hard for us to keep our side of the understanding.
	Education is a key local authority responsibility. Cambridgeshire county council and the city council are low-funded, low-council-tax authorities, partly because of all the years of controls on council tax, but Cambridgeshire is right at the bottom of the funding tables for schools. We get £600 per pupil per year less than the English average—that is £250,000 out of the budget of the typical two-form-entry primary school. That is not acceptable and it lets down our pupils. I do not know what pupils in Cambridgeshire have done to deserve it. That underfunding has gone on for three decades; it has been a long-term problem. State schools in Cambridgeshire have a much tougher job than those anywhere else. They do a great job given that background, but the lack of spare resources makes it far harder and we are now seeing greater problems, with people from more disadvantaged backgrounds struggling to keep up. The pupil premium helps and free school meals will help, but against a background of such a huge lack of funding it is hard.
	The Government have committed to changing this formula, and I very much welcome that. A number of hon. Members have contributed to that debate, and Cambridgeshire has been particularly concerned. That change has to mean extra money coming into Cambridgeshire’s schools to end this unfair treatment of our young people. But I want to see that money in our schools by the end of this Parliament, as that is how we will know that the Government are serious about it and that they do intend to be fair to our pupils.
	Lastly, let me touch on health care, because Cambridgeshire is also grossly underfunded in that area. Most clinical commissioning groups get more than £1,000 per head to spend on health care, but Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is one of the few areas that gets less than £1,000 per head. Is that a fair allocation? Has it just been worked out that we do not have people who need health care? Helpfully, the Government did publish the outcome of their fair shares formula for health allocation, which takes into account
	factors such as population, age, deprivation and much more. They published the figures, which showed that the amount that Cambridgeshire and Peterborough should be getting will be £46.5 million more than the current figure. We do not want to be right at the top—we would not even be at the average—but give us that £46.5 million and we could start to improve health care in an area where the health economy is really struggling. Today is world mental health day. If we are given that £46.5 million, we can make sure that mental health care in Cambridgeshire gets to the standard that people want and deserve.
	Local government faces a number of problems and challenges, and Government after Government have failed to allow local government to be free to deliver what it can do for its citizens in an open and varied way: that must change.

Andy Sawford: It is a great pleasure to speak for the first time as the Opposition local government spokesman on a subject of such importance. It is very close to my heart, as I represent a rural and urban area and a local authority that is a member of SPARSE—the Sparsity Partnership for Authorities delivering Rural Services—and has supported the call for today’s debate and for action.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing this important debate and on the way in which he spoke strongly for not just his own area, but rural areas across the country. He spoke for some of my constituents and those of many hon. Members, and I was pleased that he said he is not seeking to steal money from urban authorities. On that basis, I can say that, like all hon. Members, I am very sympathetic to the case he has made for a fair deal for his area.
	The same case was made also by: the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), who spoke knowledgeably about the way in which his local authority is making savings; the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who championed localism and devolution in a way that I have sought to do in roles before I came to this place; the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who painted a powerful and evocative picture of our rural areas and the way they are changing; the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), who gave us a masterclass in how to win friends and influence people, with his complimentary appeal to the Minister’s good graces; and the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), who spoke for not only her constituency, but her region, giving a perspective from an area of the country that must be heard and was heard today in this House. I also welcome the way in which my hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) made strong interventions to argue that the unfairness is felt keenly in many areas of the country, both rural and urban, because of a range of factors. As the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) highlighted when she talked about the range of issues that impact on local authorities, there is also an impact on town and parish councils at the first tier of local government. I was pleased to hear her put that on the record today.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) spoke about the rural-urban mix in her constituency. She correctly diagnosed the funding problems as being about the level of cuts overall, rather than what could otherwise be a divisive debate about rural-urban. Had she been in her place, I would have associated myself with the congratulations she offered to Sir Steve Houghton. I had the pleasure of working with Sir Steve in my former life, when I was chief executive of the Local Government Information Unit, and he is a champion for local government.
	Like the constituencies of many Members in the Chamber today, my constituency is very varied. Corby is mainly urban whereas east Northamptonshire, in contrast, is a rural area. I remember that just after I was elected I had a conversation with Mr Deputy Speaker, in which we spoke about engaging with our rural areas and farming communities. I know that that is very dear to his heart.
	Let me highlight a particular issue faced by my area, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). He spoke about the impact on areas with fast-growing populations of the failure to take proper account of that in the funding formula. Corby is the fastest-growing place in the country and has the highest birth rate. I know that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is growing too and we hope that the Minister will assure us that by moving away from a formula fixed to the 2012 baseline we can take better account of population growth.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) for his kind words about my new role and also, in particular, for the opportunity to serve under his excellent chairmanship of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, where I learned a great deal from him, as we all did today when he highlighted the scale of cuts faced by local government. With his experience of the sector in this House and as a former councillor and council leader, he warned us and the Government that we are facing a very serious situation indeed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) illustrated the severity of the cuts when he talked about the 40% cuts his council faces. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) spoke strongly for her constituency and the impact on her local council as well as on the north-east region. I have been pleased to receive the briefings from ANEC and to hear from many Members from that region today.
	The hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), in a powerful speech, predicted that complete areas of public services would cease. I was pleased to hear him praise the days when councils were properly funded under the previous Labour Government.
	It is not just that funding is being cut. We all recognise that this is a time of rising pressures. In particular, Members have spoken about the costs of looked-after children and social care, which are rising. The demands on local authorities are going up while income is coming down significantly—so much so that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East said, the LGA’s Conservative leader, the highly respected Sir Merrick Cockell, has called the cuts “unsustainable”. The Tory leader of Kent county council states that his county cannot cope with further reductions and is “running on
	empty”. As the hon. Member for Cambridge said, we are now cutting to the bone in many councils.
	Ministers know that local government is the most efficient part of the public sector—the Prime Minister has said so—but they decided to reward councils for that efficiency by cutting more from them than from any other part of the public sector. The Institute for Fiscal Studies is clear that the total cuts to local government spending will outpace those in the public sector as a whole. The situation will get worse rather than better. The LGA’s excellent report, “Future funding outlook for councils”, incorporates the additional 10% cut in this year’s spending review, which came on top of the 33% cut that councils face over this Parliament.
	No doubt the Minister will tell us that the cut amounts to 2.6%, but councils do not recognise that figure. It does not stand up to scrutiny. The LGA estimates that there will be a £15 billion black hole in finances by 2020, but the Secretary of State has called the cuts to councils “modest”. No wonder the Conservative council leaders of Essex, Buckinghamshire, Wiltshire, Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, Kent, East Sussex and West Sussex wrote to the Prime Minister to complain about the language that is being used by Communities and Local Government Ministers, because the cuts that councils face are not modest; they are massive.
	The National Audit Office warned that cuts are having a direct impact on front-line services. It warns that 12% of councils are at risk of being unable to balance their books in the future, with potentially disastrous consequences. The recent Public Accounts Committee report on the financial sustainability of local authorities found that there had not been a proper analysis of the impact of the cuts. The Committee highlighted the unfairness of the cuts to different areas of the country, and it raised serious concerns about some councils simply not being viable, such as Tory-led West Somerset.
	What actions will the Government take in the event of multiple financial failures of local authorities? If the Minister will not reply to me today, I am sure that in due course he will reply to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, who has rightly put that question to the Government. Do the Government have a plan for what is about to happen?
	The impact falls on both statutory and non-statutory services. Too often, it is assumed that statutory services will be safe because they are a legal requirement, but the truth is that councils already, throughout the country and increasingly, are restricting eligibility criteria, so older people in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends who have spoken today are losing their care. Children are losing their transport to school. The brunt of the cuts will fall on the non-statutory services that Members have mentioned, such as road maintenance, cultural and leisure services, street lighting and libraries.
	We must be honest that were a Labour Government now in office, of course there would be cuts to local government. But they would not go as far as the cuts that this Government are making, and they would certainly not be allocated to local authorities in such a fundamentally unfair way. It is not just organisations such as ANEC and the Special Interest Group of Metropolitan Authorities that point that out to us; so too has the Audit Commission, which said:
	“Councils in the most deprived areas have seen substantially greater reductions in government funding as a share of revenue expenditure than councils in less deprived areas.”
	Perhaps it is that kind of speaking truth to power that has caused the Secretary of State to abolish the Audit Commission, which I regret.
	In 2014-15, the 10 most deprived local authorities in England will lose six times more than the 10 least deprived local authorities compared with 2010-11. The councils that will suffer the biggest cuts in spending power per head, even on the Government’s own measure, which is designed to mask the real effect, are Liverpool, Hackney, Newham, Manchester, Knowsley, Blackpool, Tower Hamlets, Middlesbrough, Birmingham and Kingston upon Hull. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who has also joined the Communities and Local Government team, in Newham, knows the impact of that on her constituents, as I do on mine in Corby and east Northamptonshire.
	In contrast, the Prime Minister’s own local authority, West Oxfordshire, one of the least deprived in the country, ranking 316th out of 325 in the indices of multiple deprivation, is getting an increase in spending power of 3.1%. That is all we need to know about the Government’s priorities. And we know that it is not an unfortunate accident; it is a deliberate strategy. The former Local Government Minister, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), put it like this:
	“Those in greatest need ultimately bear the burden of paying off the debt”.—[Official Report, 10 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 448.]
	He told us that quite clearly and frankly, and we know that in our communities.
	Is that not exactly what this Government are about? They are not interested in the people in the communities that are being hit hardest. They are so brazen about it that when, earlier this year, the additional funding for rural areas was announced, they inexplicably removed Durham—one of the poorest rural areas—from that list.
	Do the Government also acknowledge that it is not just councils that are affected? Costs are increasingly being passed on to our hospitals, our prisons, our police service and our welfare system. In my area, for example, the local hospital has found that it has had to pay for care home beds out of the budget for acute hospital services, making a nonsense of the Government’s claim that they have protected NHS spending.
	If my party comes to power, as I hope it will, times will still be very tough and we will need to look at what we can do to help councils. First, we will need to make a reality of Total Place—of community budgets—on which this Government have sadly been dragging their heels. People may call it what they like, but the principle is absolutely sound. We must get local services properly joined up, we should put councils in the driving seat to do that, and we need truly to break down the barriers to it, not least in Whitehall.
	That is why Labour will look at powers in areas such as training, skills, infrastructure, transport and investment in order to help our local authorities to get their local economies going. That is why we will return the control of back-to-work schemes to councils. That is why we will launch, with our local authorities, the biggest house building programme in a generation and celebrate council house building again across the country. That is why we will give councils the right to grow, with the incentives
	they need to acquire land and put in the infrastructure, and that is why we will truly integrate health and social care to realise the vision of Nye Bevan, the founding father of the national health service.
	That is why we will back those things that councils are doing well, even though money is tight. We want to celebrate good things in local government, but I was very surprised to hear the hon. Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) crowing about the BBC ICM report. I have the full survey here. In not one of the 15 service areas do the majority of people think their services are getting better. In some areas, such as road maintenance—my constituents who experience the potholes every day know about this—66% were clear that they were getting a worse service. I am sure hon. Members will have an opportunity to correct the record of the remarks that they made earlier. One thing that people are clear about in the survey is how frightened they are about the impact of the cuts that this Government are imposing.
	Labour councils are working hard to mitigate the impact of the damage being done by this out-of-touch Government. That is why I am delighted that many more Labour councillors were elected earlier this year and many councils turned to Labour control. Whether we are implementing the living wage, schemes to bring household energy bills down, promoting apprenticeships, building social housing or attracting new investment into our local high streets, I am very proud of what Labour councils are doing. It helps us to plan for our return to office in 2015. That is why the work of our local government innovation taskforce is helping to shape the policies of the next Labour Government.
	Finally—

Julian Huppert: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andy Sawford: I have no more time.
	Finally, on funding, we will review the formula. We will make the formula fairer, but for today let us accept that the Government’s approach to local government funding needs to be seen for what it really is—it is unfair and it is unjust. It is unfair to local residents who rely on local services, and it is unjust in the way that it hits the poorest areas and the poorest people hardest.

Brandon Lewis: First, I join the Chairman of the Select Committee in congratulating the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) on his new role. I look forward to working with him and debating with him across the Chamber. I welcome the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) to her new role as well.
	I was somewhat surprised and a little disappointed that in the speech that the hon. Member for Corby has just made in his new role, he did not get round to outlining where the £52 billion of cuts that his party would make were likely to fall. If I understood him correctly, he said that the funding formula was unfair. I wonder whether he will at some stage explain to the House why, in 13 years, his party did nothing about that and, indeed, made it worse. In his comments about how councils are currently funded and how the spending patterns worked, he did not note the fact that his own
	council, Corby, despite having the highest spending power per head in Northamptonshire, had an increase of about 4.4% this year, so proving that the formula is fair wherever one is.
	I shall try to restrict my comments—

Grahame Morris: rose—

Brandon Lewis: Let me make a start before I take interventions, depending on time. I shall try to restrict my comments to the topic on which the majority of Members have spoken today, which is rural funding, although I note and will comment to some extent on comments from Members across the Floor on local government funding generally. We also moved into NHS funding and Department for Education funding, but I will not take up Members’ time by going too far into that.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and thank him for bringing this important debate to the House, giving everybody a chance to comment and giving me the opportunity to listen. I have met him and the team from the rural sparsity group on a number of occasions and will be happy to do so again. No doubt we will meet again over the next few months as we get towards the funding settlement. I note that he would like an extra £30 million. I also note the realism in his comment about the chances of the Government finding another £30 million when we are still trying to clear up the debt, the deficit and the mess left by the previous Government.

Grahame Morris: rose—

Brandon Lewis: I will take an intervention in a little while, if I have time.
	We heard a number of interventions during the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) mentioned what small councils could do. It is worth stressing—I am happy to put this on the record again—that there are small district councils across the country, and not just in rural areas, running budgets of roughly £10 million or even less. They must look at their situations very closely and consider whether their current format, with their own chief executives, management and silo services, is sustainable. They should consider partnering with other authorities, as around 40 authorities do already, and having shared chief executives and management.
	The partnerships between High Peak borough council and Staffordshire Moorlands district council is a fantastic example. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) talked about Mid-Suffolk district council, and I must say that Suffolk, as a county generally, offers a really good exemplar of the work that can be done. Suffolk Coastal and Waveney district councils are coming together with a shared chief executive. Babergh and Mid-Suffolk district councils and St Edmundsbury borough council and Forest Heath district council are all showing how to come together to make real savings.
	The chief executive of a council deal such as Staffordshire Moorlands and High Peak would explain that those kinds of savings can amount to 18% or 20%. When they are running a budget of around £10 million, that is a substantial saving. I argue that small local authorities
	should be doing that not only because of financial pressure, but because the money could be spent on front-line services, rather than on administration and management.
	Several Members mentioned school bus services. I agree that councils should be working very hard to protect front-line services that are important to rural and urban communities. In my constituency of Great Yarmouth, the Labour-led county council has looked at cutting rural bus services, which would mean children having to walk up to three miles to get to school, and on major roads with no pathways. That is absolutely unacceptable. It should be looking at the plans that were in place under the previous Conservative administration in order to find the savings it needs and bring in the revenue it needs without slashing those important services. Councils should look at that carefully.
	The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) carefully outlined the situation with regard to funding, but we must remember that in the past year councils increased their reserves to £19 billion, the highest level on record. It is important that we also look at options. This Government are not just talking about that; with community budgets we are delivering a transformation in the way services are provided across the public sector, which independent reports show could save this country around £20 billion. Across the country there are community budget pilots, of all political colours, doing some phenomenal work, and that has now been rolled out to a further nine areas.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) touched on some of the issues relating to education, transport and buses, which I have already outlined. The Chair of the Communities and Local Government Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), raised some issues about funding and mentioned the 56 councils. I have touched on some of the things that they could be looking at. I am not entirely surprised, although I am still disappointed, that he seems to be making the case for more taxes on people who I think want the cost of living to go down. That is why it is important that we freeze council tax and do not encourage more taxes locally.

Clive Betts: The Minister just mentioned reserves. Does he not understand that it is not an issue of rural or urban, or Conservative or Labour? It is about councils looking at the black hole that is coming, as the forecasts show, and which the Chancellor has identified in the spending review, and making prudent decisions on how to spread the money available over a number of years in order to try to do their best to protect services. If Ministers just keep rubbishing that as councils holding on to reserves for their own sake, they do a disservice to hard-pressed local authorities.

Brandon Lewis: I am afraid that I entirely disagree. Having led a local council that, before my time, had seen council tax increases of 18% and 16%—they were regularly in the double figures—and in a country where council tax doubled under the Labour Government, I believe that hard-working people think that council tax should be kept low and that councils should be looking at how they spend their money, not just building up
	reserves and then pleading poverty. If they believe that they are short of money, they should use the reserves they have to invest for income in the future and make savings, as many good authorities are doing.
	The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), in a very strong speech, touched on the new homes bonus, as did a number of Members. It is an issue that we are looking at. There is a consultation at the moment and the Government will of course respond to it. The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) referred to fire authorities, but he should bear in mind that the response to the Knight review is coming. Fire authorities were protected in order to make some of the efficiencies that they should have been making but in too many cases were not.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) outlined in his strong contribution—other Members also commented on this—how he thought the funding gap should be reduced. I say to my hon. Friend that the gap between rural and urban with regard to spending per head has reduced by 4%.
	That leads me to an important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) in his passionate speech. I thought I was doing well with his flattery and compliments, for which I am grateful. He was clearly being sincere until he mentioned the word “svelte”; I knew then that my ego was not being brushed in the way I hoped. My hon. Friend made a clear point about the analysis. While he was away after suffering an unfortunate injury, I actually met SPARSE and I would be happy to go through this again. We managed to clarify the difference between how it and the Government have calculated the figures. A rural area is different for the Government, because an area such as my county of Norfolk, which would usually be classed as rural, has within it urban areas such as Norwich, Great Yarmouth and King’s Lynn, and that gives us a slightly different calculation. I would be happy to go through the figures with my hon. Friend when we get to them in a few months’ time.

Rory Stewart: Will the Minister please consider the broader context? The county of Cumbria is losing £63 million from its health budget and another £1 million from its fire budget. These things cannot be seen in silos. They have to be put together.

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. I will touch on how these things come together and the work we are doing to deal with that.
	The hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) made a passionate and strong speech about sparsity and disparity and how they need to be dealt with. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) made a powerful point about the chief executive of the Local Government Association, who is clearly disposed towards higher council tax charges for residents, which is something I think all of us—those of us on the Conservative Benches, at least—want to move away from while we keep frozen and low council tax. In some areas, good Conservative councils are even cutting council tax for their hard-working residents. I noted my hon. Friend’s comment about asset sales. I will look at that and if he will bear with me, I will get back to him on that specific issue.
	My hon. Friend was absolutely right to mention incentives to pool and work together. We have put incentives in place and I will touch on them in a moment. Councils such as High Peak, Staffordshire Moorlands, Breckland and South Holland have just this week benefitted from those incentives and the money we announced.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness continues to make a strong case on this issue. He has pushed it with other Members and comes to see me regularly. I have no doubt that our conversations will continue as we approach the financial settlement period over the next few months.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) highlighted the cost for rural areas, particularly with regard to transport. Members representing urban areas often mention issues to do with density and poverty and how they balance out. That issue has yet to be proven with regard to cost differences and we will continue to look at it.
	I gently say to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that, if Cambridgeshire is so short of funding, he might want to ask how it could afford a huge pay-off and the rather interesting system it has used to reappoint the chief fire office of its fire authority. That happened in the past few weeks and it has raised a number of questions.

Graham Stuart: Will the Minister touch specifically on the magic dust of 2012—the damping—and the fact that, instead of a being a transition mechanism, it turns out to be a deep freeze of an inequity?

Brandon Lewis: I am about to turn to some more general points and I will touch on the damping issue.
	I want to be clear that behind all our thinking is that it is vital for councils to continue to play their part in tackling the budget deficit we inherited from the previous Government, making sensible savings and delivering value for money for the taxpayer, as many good councils are doing. We are providing direct financial incentives for councils to promote growth and jobs in their area. This year’s local government finance settlement set out how authorities can now directly retain £11 billion-worth of business rates and keep the growth from them instead of returning them to the Treasury.
	More importantly, and perhaps more relevantly to this debate and the points made by hon. Members from all parties, in the current settlement we accepted, based on the available evidence, that rural areas are comparatively underfunded. We have therefore ensured that there is proper recognition of the additional costs of delivering services in rural areas. We adjusted the relative needs formula to reflect those costs. That was one of only three formula changes in the settlement.
	Members have noted the changes, but I will reiterate them. We have increased the weight of super-sparse areas in the formula; doubled the sparsity weight for older people’s social care and district-level environmental protection and cultural services; reinstated the sparsity adjustment for the county level; and introduced a sparsity adjustment for fire and rescue. As a result, funding per head has been reduced by less in predominantly rural authorities than in predominantly urban authorities within all classes. There was a 4% reduction in the gap
	between 2012-13 and 2013-14. I know that some Members have an issue with how that is classified and I am happy to meet them to go through that when the figures for next year are confirmed.
	We listened to the representations of rural authorities on the provisional settlement in the debate earlier this year. That is why we provided a further £8.5 million grant to help rural authorities with sparse populations.

Stephen Phillips: North Kesteven district council received £38,000, whereas if the sparsity factors had been properly taken into account and not been damped, it would have received several hundred thousand pounds. I say to the Minister that £38,000 does not butter many parsnips.

Brandon Lewis: I do not know where my hon. and learned Friend buys his butter and parsnips, but I understand his point. The Government obviously have to ensure that there is not too much volatility in the system, but the comments on damping have been noted and I will return to them in a moment.
	Hon. Members have spoken about incentives. Yesterday, I announced the successful bids to the transformation challenge award. Eighteen local authorities will share £7 million to look at ways of bringing their services and management together and working in innovative ways. We are showing clearly that councils will get what they make, rather than having to take from a begging bowl. We will reward councils that deliver. The new homes bonus and the business rates incentive scheme are part of that. Through the new homes bonus, about 40 councils saw an increase in their spending power this year. I note that one of those councils was Corby borough council in the shadow Minister’s constituency. There are councils that need to be more efficient still. Some small councils need to do more to share their management and services. We are doing what we can to incentivise and support that.
	We issued the “50 ways to save” document. I encourage councils to look at that to find more ways to save and to ensure that they are being efficient in the back office and in their services, and that they are using transparency to cut waste. The best councils are protecting the front line, including weekly bin collections, library services and meals on wheels, while getting rid of waste and inefficiency.
	We are aware of the pressures that are coming. We therefore have a £3.8 billion pool of funding for integrated health and social care, a new transforming services fund, a programme that will review the pressures on children’s services, and new flexibility to use capital receipts from asset sales to fund one-off revenue costs for reforming services.
	I have heard the clear and passionate comments that have been made today. We will consider them over the next few month as we approach the spending review.

Neil Parish: I have two minutes in which to make some telling comments.
	I thank the 14 Members who have taken part in this powerful debate. I welcome the Minister’s remarks, but I go back to my original argument. In 2012, the Government looked at shifting money across to rural authorities. After that they damped it, then they gave us back
	£8 million and now they say that they cannot even find £30 million. If it was right to do it in 2012, it is right to do it now. I ask the Minister to look at the matter again, because we will mobilise the rural yeomanry to ensure that we get our fair share of funding. We are asking for one tenth of 1% of the total budget to be shifted towards rural authorities. Is that too much to ask of the Government? I do not think it is.
	The hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) made the point that council tax payers pay £130 more for their services in rural areas. We therefore demand better services. Devon is the 245th worst funded area for its schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) is running a great campaign on that issue.
	We cannot just sit in the House and allow rural authorities and rural people to be treated in this way, so I tell the Minister that we will come to meet him again and will be looking for his cheque book. It is no good just having warm words, because we can put them nowhere. What we actually want is help—as my grandmother used to say, an ounce of help is better than a ton of pity. We want some help, not just warm words, so we look forward to a real solution.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered funding for local authorities.

KIDSGROVE RAILWAY STATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gavin Barwell.)

Joan Walley: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate disabled access to Kidsgrove railway station. It is no disrespect to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I say that I had rather hoped that Mr Speaker might have been in the Chair, because he visited Kidsgrove recently and attended the Kidsgrove youth parliament. I am sure he would have remembered that our young people gave great weight and priority to public transport. Today’s debate is dedicated to them and to those who have set out just how unacceptable it is that, despite the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the subsequent Equality Act 2010, services at Kidsgrove railway station are still not compliant with that disability legislation. The debate is intended to put that right.
	I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, and I hope he is as committed to integrated transport as his predecessor was. I wish him well in his new role. I hope that by the time he responds, I will have convinced him that when he decides which railway stations across the country are to benefit from the welcome £100 million next phase of the Access for All fund, Kidsgrove railway station should be on the list of successful bids.
	I will give a little of the background to the debate. When Kidsgrove moved—it did not actually move, but it moved in terms of boundary changes—back into the parliamentary constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North at the last general election, I looked at the issues that needed my support. I quickly identified the importance of making Kidsgrove railway station accessible to all my constituents. I brought together the county council, the borough council, Kidsgrove town council, the train operating companies and Network Rail to see what we could do. At that meeting, I was really disappointed to find that no one appeared previously to have thought about how to include Kidsgrove station in the bids for Access for All funding that were launched back in 2006.
	Many stations had got their bids in and received brand-new disabled facilities. I was particularly impressed by the wonderful architectural design at Denmark Hill station, which had new ramps and had been refurbished. I believe that Long Eaton, in my own region, received £1.6 million to install two new lifts, providing step-free access to both platforms. Sadly, Kidsgrove station did not feature. No bid was made, and as I was told in replies to my letters to the previous Minister, and in meetings that I had with him, the money allocated for station improvements for those with disabilities was all spent.
	I then set about arranging further follow-up meetings, with the intention of being ready as soon as the next tranche of funding was announced. It was duly announced that bids were being invited for the 2015 to 2019 period and should be received by 15 November 2013, with a ministerial announcement expected in April 2014. I therefore believe that the debate is timely so that we can leave no stone unturned in securing investment.
	I say to the Minister that sometimes it is when one does things for the first time that one really remembers them. If this is his first Adjournment debate in his new role, I hope that he will remember our request.
	Why is funding needed in Kidsgrove? It is a town where, in 1777, probably the largest civil engineering project ever carried out in Britain up to that time was completed—the construction of the Harecastle tunnel for the Trent and Mersey canal, which was the combined vision and achievement of James Brindley and Josiah Wedgwood. Subsequently, the railways linked up with the development of the area’s industries. In such a town, one can imagine the frustration that today our otherwise well-kept and much-loved railway station lacks access to three out of four platforms.
	I called into the station as recently as last Friday, and I was struck by the staff and volunteers who are working so hard to make the station one of which we can all be proud. Volunteers tend the gardens and the public spaces with great care. They keep it spotlessly clean, freshly painted and well lit—Councillor Elsie Bates is doing a wonderful job. The station has a functioning train information display, ticket machines and notice boards—all the things we would expect. It has a spacious well-laid out car park with bike racks and integrated transport, and there is scope to extend that and adjacent land into a public transport hub—something much championed by local councillors and Jon Honeysett MBE, whom I thank for his work on integrated transport. The station also has efficient and friendly staff, and I saw all those things when I visited last Friday.
	The station was rewarded when it deservedly won the best small station award at the community rail awards in 2011. Outside its entrance there are two disabled car parking spaces, clearly marked in yellow paint. If someone is disabled, however, or simply young or old, or if they experience difficulty going up and down the flights of stairs that link the four platforms, perhaps with buggies or heavy luggage, they simply would not be able to get access to three out of the four platforms. That is why it is so important that the Minister responds to this debate.
	Services from platforms 2, 3 and 4, to Manchester, Derby, London—including for getting to Parliament—and Crewe, cannot be accessed. To get to Manchester, for example, someone must catch a train to Stoke, change, and board another train to Manchester that goes through Kidsgrove. That leads to the absurd situation whereby anyone who is disabled ends up half an hour later exactly where they started.
	It is not only about direct travel to those destinations, but about onward travel, including to the north Wales coast—a particularly popular holiday destination for people from the Potteries—the south coast, Scotland, regional airports, and even to towns and cities with clubs in the premier league and the first division, which are increasingly popular destinations for local football supporters. A further point concerns direct and connecting services to Crewe and south Cheshire, and I thank Jenny Baker of Friends of Sandbach Station, who has gone to great lengths to add her support to our campaign.

Fiona Bruce: I thank the hon. Lady for initiating this debate. Her constituency neighbours mine, and news of her effective campaign has reached the Friends of Sandbach Station, who confirmed to me how much it highlights that this is not an isolated problem. I support—of course—her campaign for Kidsgrove station, but may I say that Sandbach station is in a similar situation? It has flat access to one platform,
	and footbridge access only to three. Therefore, if someone is disabled, they can travel only to Crewe. We have one advantage over Kidsgrove, however, because we have nine disabled parking spaces, not two. Will the Minister also consider Access for All funding for Sandbach?

Joan Walley: The hon. Lady’s intervention is helpful because she makes the point to the Minister that the campaign is supported by Members on both sides of the House. The criteria state that it is important that the investment, when it comes, should not be concentrated in London and the south-east. I hope it comes first to Kidsgrove, and secondly to Sandbach and other connecting stations along the line.
	On the criteria, let us look at the disability and age demographics. Staffordshire county council’s profile of adult disability in the county from February 2012 shows that there are a total of 4,540 claimants on incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Newcastle has the highest number of service users in residential care and supported accommodation in Staffordshire. That and the proportion of the 16-and-over population claiming disability living allowance—6,720 is well above the national average—gives a good indication of the demographic profile, which is an added reason to prioritise Kidsgrove station in the forthcoming bidding round.
	No bid will be signed off without meeting the station footfall criteria. I have mentioned the history of the railways. Jobs in the heavy industries that gave us the local railway have declined, but they have been superseded by jobs in other areas. That has resulted in Kidsgrove becoming a key commuter station to Manchester and Stoke-on-Trent and, as we have just heard, Crewe, Sandbach and elsewhere. Accordingly, footfall at Kidsgrove railway station has gone through the roof, from just 32,192 in 2005-06 to 158,478 in 2011-12. Furthermore, passenger numbers are expected to grow at 21% per year in the coming years. Moreover, there is every indication that that trend will continue. Staffordshire county council has agreed in principle to allow the former Kidsgrove goods yard, which it owns, to be used for extra car parking at the station, increasing the number of places from 55 to 200—a 400% increase in spaces for a car park that tends to operate at capacity.
	Closer integration of rail and bus services is proposed. Currently, the nearest bus stops are at least 250 yards from the station, and their location is not obvious to rail users. Re-routing the four local bus services to within sight of the station forecourt will greatly benefit the station. I am hopeful that that will happen. Getting the direct service to Manchester airport reinstated would drastically increase footfall at Kidsgrove and could be the subject of another debate in the House. All in all, I believe that the demographics of Kidsgrove match the criteria.
	On local support, which has to be shown if the bid is to go ahead, I can tell the House that the proposal is fully supported by Staffordshire county council, Newcastle borough council, Kidsgrove town council, the local enterprise partnership, East Midlands Trains and London Midland Trains. East Midlands Trains confirmed to my office this morning that Kidsgrove station is its top priority in the next tranche of funding. Virgin, which does not go from the station, has indicated that ramped access would have indirect benefits for its services.
	In addition, Clough Hall technology school, which has a specialist autism unit, has sent a letter of support to me. I hope the Minister makes a note of this. It states:
	“As the only Church of England secondary school in Staffordshire, our conversion, together with the new build, will increase the number of pupils attending the school, especially those travelling in from other areas. We value inclusivity and would welcome a DDA-compliant footbridge which would give access to all platforms, so that pupils with physical disability can travel by train to our school.”
	I have had many letters of support, including from Kidsgrove town council, Crewe town council and Kidsgrove Townswomen’s Guild.
	On top of that, a significant number of local people support the bid. I thank the mayor of Kidsgrove, Kyle Robinson, and his fellow councillors for helping with the petition, which I am sure will get even more signatures as awareness of the campaign grows. I also refer the Minister to the recent Environmental Audit Committee report, which I helped to produce, on transport and access to public services, and in particular our conclusion that services be joined up and that disabled people should not be excluded.
	I have one final point to bring to the Minister’s attention. When I set out on this campaign, I was led to believe that it was down to the train operating company to make the bid for departmental funding. Many meetings and phone calls later, I seem to have gone around in a circle, because I am now told that the remit rests with Network Rail. The local delivery group and county council also have a role, and the Minister has the final say when the submissions have been made. The whole system is at the very least opaque. It leaves me feeling that those stations that sit within a defined passenger transport executive area stand the best chance of a successful bid.
	Kidsgrove must not be penalised because the station is a junction on the edge of the Staffordshire-Cheshire local authority borders, under the jurisdiction of no passenger transport executive and a long way down the line from the headquarters of its train operating company, East Midland Trains. It is also unclear from the guidance issued how complete the business case, costings and designs have to be at the time of the actual submission, and who actually has responsibility for submitting the bid. I do not mind whether it is submitted by East Midland Trains, Staffordshire county council, as the highway authority, or Network Rail. They have all indicated support for the bid. What I do mind is that no one understands the process so the bid is not made on time.
	The local delivery groups have an enormous say in how the bids are made. I would like to hear what communication the Minister has had with those groups and what more can be done to make sure that when the decision is announced—I understand it will be in April next year—Kidsgrove railway station is on the list.
	I notice that part of the criteria is a local commitment to offering matching funds in round 5. Our local authorities are under a great deal of pressure and I do not quite know where that matching funding would come from, but I am happy to sit down with the Minister to discover whether matching funds can come from other
	Departments to help to make our case. We urgently need Kidsgrove railway station to be compliant with disability legislation.

Stephen Hammond: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) on securing the debate on disabled access at Kidsgrove station. I am delighted to be covering this role tonight in the House and, like my predecessor, I am committed to ensuring accessibility. In recent years, expectations about accessibility have rightly changed, both among disabled passengers and the railway industry, and that is even more the case after the success of our transport networks in providing accessible journeys during last year’s Olympics and Paralympics.
	Unfortunately, as the hon. Lady recognised when she gave the history of Kidsgrove station, many of our railway stations date from Victorian times, including Kidsgrove, which first opened in 1848. These 19th century stations were not built with the needs of 21st century passengers in mind, and that has left us with a huge task in ensuring that the expectations of disabled passengers are met by opening up the rail network to them.
	Clearly, accessible stations make a huge difference to people’s journey experience, not only for people with reduced mobility, but also for those carrying heavy luggage or pushing unwieldy pushchairs. I am grateful that the hon. Lady acknowledged that we remain committed to making further improvements in this area and have continued to support, and indeed expand, the Access for All programme, launched in 2006 by the previous Government. The programme was worth £370 million in 2004-05 prices, and will deliver accessible routes at more than 150 stations.
	To demonstrate value for money to the Treasury and the Office of Rail Regulation, I am happy to confirm that the funding has been targeted at the busiest stations. By using a weighting mechanism that allowed us to look at stations’ footfall figures overlaid with census data on disability, we have tried to ensure that as many disabled people as possible can benefit from funding. Approximately a third of the stations were chosen to ensure a fair geographical spread across the country. We took into account the views of train operators and the proximity to facilities such as hospitals, schools for disabled children and military rehabilitation centres—factors that the hon. Lady raised in her speech.
	One hundred and five projects are now complete and we expect the rest of the programme to be substantially complete by April next year, a full year ahead of the initial plans. If we look at the scale of the work and what it has done for the ability to open up accessibility for disabled people, there are some significant engineering projects: Clapham Junction, the busiest station in Europe, is now completely accessible for the first time in its 150 year history. We should not be complacent, however.
	The hon. Lady is right to say that last year’s high-level output statement included a further £100 million to extend the Access for All programme to 2019. I hear what she says about the process being opaque. I will touch on this in more depth in a moment, but I think it is relatively well known that it is for local delivery groups—Network Rail and the train operating
	companies—to liaise with local authorities in making nominations. We have asked the rail industry to nominate stations for inclusion in the new £100 million programme. I recognise the efforts made by the hon. Lady, and both Network Rail and East Midlands Trains are undoubtedly aware of the desire of the local population for Kidsgrove station to be a top priority. I note her comment that East Midlands Trains has confirmed to her today that it regards Kidsgrove as its top priority. I am sure that will help in the nomination process.
	The industry has a number of local delivery groups across the country that were set up to administer the national stations improvement programme in control period 4, which is just about to end. We have asked them to expand their role and nominate stations for the Access for All programme, which has been extended with an extra £100 million. Each group contains representatives from train operating companies and Network Rail. While we continue to believe that the busiest stations remain the priority, we also believe that there should be a fair distribution of investment across the country.
	I listened to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) concerning Sandbach station. I recognise that there is a problem, with flat access to only one platform. If the only place one can travel to is Crewe, wonderful though it may be, that is rather a limiting experience.
	We want the industry to take into account other factors, such as improving inter-urban journeys. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North mentioned the availability of third party match funding, which can be used to weight business cases for individual station projects. I am happy to extend to her the meeting she requested, and she is welcome to come to the Department to discuss match funding possibilities for Kidsgrove, which will help us to speed up delivery. I would expect local authorities to take that into account in their submissions to local delivery groups, and I would also expect the views of local authorities to be taken into account by those local delivery groups when they make their nominations.

Joan Walley: Will the Minister tell us how the process will work? Who will submit the bid: local delivery groups, operating companies or local authorities?

Stephen Hammond: The local delivery group is a combination of Network Rail and the operators within the region, and it is for the local delivery group to make that submission and that nomination. The industry has been asked to complete the nomination process for extended Access for All by 15 November. The Department is receiving nominations as we speak, and the process will be open, as I say, until 15 November. Once we have received them, officials at the Department will analyse all the nominations before a final decision is taken on which stations will receive funding. I hope to be able to announce the successful bidding round, starting at the beginning of the next control period, by April next year.
	After the hon. Lady’s comments tonight, I am certainly aware of the access issues at Kidsgrove station—and, indeed, at Sandbach—but I also know that there are many other stations across the network that have seen passenger numbers rising. The impressive increase in footfall at Kidsgrove, seen in the figures verified by the
	Office of Rail Regulation, will undoubtedly form part of the case made by the local delivery group when it makes its nomination.
	I will certainly welcome a nomination from Kidsgrove. I want to put on record the fact that the Department will welcome nominations from as many stations as possible. As the hon. Lady will understand, although I would welcome her nomination, I cannot guarantee that any particular station will necessarily be funded or included in the programme once it has been nominated. What I can guarantee is that it will be considered carefully, along with the nominations of all the other inaccessible stations across the country.
	Access for All is clearly an important part of the funding, but it is also important to remember that improved access could be achieved by using relatively small amounts of funding, combined with some innovative thinking by the industry. That would be particularly important if Kidsgrove’s application were to prove unsuccessful, when the hon. Lady might like to consider some of the alternatives I am about to mention. There is an annual small schemes fund of around £7 million a year. It is allocated between the train operating companies and is based on the number of stations they manage and how busy those stations are. Since 2006, more than £100 million of investment, including contributions from the train operators and local authorities, has seen projects delivered at almost 1,100 of the country’s 2,500 stations. A variety of projects have been supported under the small schemes, including better provision of accessible toilets, customer information services, blue badge parking spaces and features such as induction loops at ticket offices.

Joan Walley: Will the Minister acknowledge that using small scheme funding for Kidsgrove will not really work? Because it is at a junction and two lines come through it, and because the railway station was constructed in such a way that it has overhead cables, it greatly puts up the potential costs, probably beyond what would be admissible under the small schemes funds. It will have to come out of Access for All funding.

Stephen Hammond: I hear what the hon. Lady says. I looked at the diagram of Kidsgrove station so I am aware of her point. None the less, I think that there might be some possibilities under the small schemes, and I would not wish to rule them out. I hope I am outlining some other possibilities to her.
	The hon. Lady will also be aware that in 2011, we released £37.5 million of Access for All mid-tier funding to help projects needing a slightly greater amount of support—up to £1 million. A total of 42 such projects have so far been successful. A number of stations considered the issue the hon. Lady mentioned about students at the local college. The lifts at Alton station, for example, which benefited Treloar college for the physically disabled, came into being through this mid-tier funding.
	Access for All funding has clearly been a huge success, but I do not want to give the impression that it is all that we are doing because Access for All is over and above the work being done through major investments being delivered by train operators. They are required to invest an average of £250,000 a year under their minor works programmes on improving stations. Most of that is
	exclusively spent on access improvements. Each operator is also required to have a disabled people’s protection policy in place as part of their licence to operate services.
	It is important to understand that Access for All is key. I will look forward to and welcome the nomination,
	but much else is going on. We are working with the industry to ensure that we have much wider access for—
	House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).